Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (IMPRISONED BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the position with regard to the two British subjects, Mr. J. G. Martyr and Mr. Mason, who have been held in prison for more than a month by the Japanese; and what steps have been taken to obtain their release?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Messrs. Mason and Martyr were arrested by the Japanese authorities in Tokyo on 16th September, under the recently amended Japanese National Defence Law. Sir R. Craigie has made strong and repeated protests against the refusal of the Japanese authorities to disclose the nature of the charges against them or to allow the British Consul to visit them. I have instructed His Majesty's Ambassador to take up the matter with the new Japanese Government and to press energetically for their release.

Mr. Mander: Is it not more than a month that these British subjects have been imprisoned without any information being supplied? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only course which Japan and other aggressors understand is absolutely firm action, and will he take such action in this case?

Mr. Eden: I do not think I can add to my answer at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH WEST AFRICA (BRITISH SURVIVORS, TREATMENT).

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the treatment meted out to 42 British survivors of a bombed ship, who

got to West Africa, by the officials of the Vichy Government; whether any protest has been made; and whether His Majesty's Government will treat the Vichy Government as hostile and occupy Obok, instead of immobilising considerable Allied Forces for the protection of French and Italians in that part of the world?

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government have received a number of disquieting reports of the treatment of the survivors of British ships who have been landed in French West Africa. The matter has been taken up with the French High Commissioner at Dakar, and the United States Consul there is making inquiries on our behalf. When their result is known, His Majesty's Government will consider what further action should be taken. As regards the last part of the Question, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and Haddington (Captain McEwen) on 15th October.

Mr. Wedgwood: "How long, O Lord," shall we continue to turn the other cheek?

Oral Answers to Questions — FINLAND.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply to the British note has been received from Finland; what the present position is; and whether the British Government has now finally determined its attitude to the future of Finland?

Mr. Eden: As regards the first part of the Question, the reply of the Finnish Government, which has been summarised in the Press, consists of an elaborate attempt to justify the Finnish attitude towards the conflict on the Eastern front. This reply is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

SIR OTTO NIEMEYER'S MISSION.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement as to the purpose and scope of the mission of Sir Otto Niemeyer to China?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I am glad to have this opportunity of informing the House that, on the invitation of the Chinese


Government, Sir Otto Niemeyer has undertaken, at the request of His Majesty's Government, a financial and economic mission to China. Sir Otto Niemeyer will be in a position to discuss any financial and economic questions which the Chinese Government may wish to raise.

JAPANESE TRADE CONTROL.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now been notified that the export of cotton yarn and cotton manufactures from Shanghai has been prohibited by the Customs, acting under the direction of the Japanese, except under licence; on what conditions licences are being issued; and what proportion of the export trade in these goods, amounting to, approximately, £7,000,000 per annum, will be allowed to continue?

Mr. Eden: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts of the Question, the method of application of the new system and its probable effect on exports are at present under consideration.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Will my right hon. Friend remember the Question which I put to him some time ago, whether he has been able to make any progress with the idea that, in the absence of export licences in the ordinary way, it will be possible for the British Consul at Shanghai to grant clearances to British ships?

Mr. Eden: Yes. Sir, I have done something in that matter. Perhaps I can communicate with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA.

GOVERNMENT.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of any changes in the relations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Emperor of Abyssinia; and when he will be able to make a statement as to His Majesty's Government's intentions regarding the future government of Abyssinia?

Mr. Eden: I have nothing to add at the moment to the Reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) on 1st October.

Mr. Riley: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is anxiety about our future attitude to Abyssinia? Can he reply to that point?

Mr. Eden: I have explained what our policy is. What the hon. Member wishes has already been clearly defined in the House.

LAND AND MINERAL LEASES (ITALIANS).

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether the Ethiopian Government are now in a position to terminate the leases of land and minerals made to Italians by the former Italian rulers of Ethiopia; and, if not, when they are expected to be in such a position?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Sandys): The Emperor will be in a position to legislate on this matter as soon as the agreement now under discussion between him and His Majesty's Government has been signed.

Mr. Wedgwood: Are the relations between this country and His Majesty the Emperor a matter for the War Office or for the Foreign Office?

Mr. Sandys: The position is that this territory which was under Italian rule is, until an agreement is concluded, being administered as occupied enemy territory.

Mr. Maxton: Is there any difficulty in reaching agreement with the Emperor?

Mr. Sandys: So far as I know, there is no difficulty whatever. The conversations are proceeding in a most amicable fashion. But there is a large number of complicated matters which have to be settled, and it takes time.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is it not desirable that the body which will be normally responsible for the territory should take responsibility before the negotiations are concluded?

FRENCH INTERNMENT CAMPS AND PRISONS.

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the disquieting reports of conditions in French internment camps and prisons, he will cause the Government at Vichy to be informed that, in the event of a British victory, its members will be held personally responsible for the lives of British internees and of French nationals


imprisoned in consequence of their part in the Anglo-French Alliance?

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government are in frequent communication with the Vichy Government through the good offices of the United States Government, who are the Protecting Power, in regard to the welfare of British service personnel and other British subjects interned in unoccupied France and French African territories; and they are taking, in co-operation with the United States Government, whatever steps are most likely to be effective to ensure the proper treatment of these men. Experience has shown that representations on behalf of prisoners or internees of other than British nationality may well only worsen the lot of the persons concerned.

Mr. Lipson: Will the steps taken include inspection of those camps?

Mr. Eden: That is exactly what I am asking.

ROAD AND RAIL MAKING (UNITED STATES AID).

Commander King-Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will ask the Government of the United States of America to give favourable consideration to the formation of a road and rail-making organisation on a large scale, to be derived from the United States of America civil engineering resources in men and material, so that the Allies may have at their immediate disposal an organisation superior to the Todt organisation?

Mr. Eden: An approach has already been made to the United States Government on lines similar to those suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, and this has evoked a generous response.

Mr. Price: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how immensely important it is to have something like the Todt organisation to improve the communications in Persia with our Russian Allies?

Mr. Eden: Of course, we do. It has been the basis of the policy we have been pursuing. As I explained to my hon. Friend, we have received the most generous and helpful response from the United States, but I think further particulars must be left for them to give.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

MESSING ARRANGEMENTS, MIDDLE EAST.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in sections of the Royal Air Force in the Middle East officer-pilots and sergeant-pilots are messing together; whether he agrees that those who hold commissions and those who do not should be allowed to mix in this manner; and whether he is satisfied that this mixing is not subversive of discipline.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I have no official knowledge of the arrangement referred to, but I am making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

BALLOON COMMAND (PAMPHLET).

Squadron-Leader Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will arrange for the publication of a pamphlet, similar to the "Battle of Britain," dealing with Balloon Command, in view of the fact that this command was entirely raised on an auxiliary basis; and that such a publication would be of great public interest?

Sir A. Sinclair: The preparation of a pamphlet dealing with Balloon Command is under consideration with other proposals of a similar nature.

RUSSIAN OPERATIONS (WINTER EQUIPMENT).

Squadron-Leader Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Royal Air Force personnel now. operating in Russia was fully kitted for Russian winter conditions before embarkation; and whether necessary warm clothing, &c, will be supplied by the Russian authorities?

Sir A. Sinclair: The first contingent of Royal Air Force personnel left before winter conditions set in in Russia, and was not fully equipped for these conditions. Adequate supplies of warm clothing have now been sent, and later parties have been fully kitted before embarkation.

WOMEN PERSONNEL.

Squadron-Leader Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied with the present rate of recruitment of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force


balloon operators; whether the substitution of Women's Auxiliary Air Force personnel for these duties has proved satisfactory; and what further steps are being taken in this matter in order to release Royal Air Force personnel of all ranks for other duties?

Sir A. Sinclair: The Answer to the first and second parts of the Question is in the affirmative. As for the last part, the possibility of extending the employment of women is under constant review, and substantial progress is being made.

ROYAL OBSERVER CORPS (WARM CLOTHING).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that in many cases the clothing issued to members of the Royal Observer Corps is over two years old; and whether he has made direct inquiries to see whether there are legitimate grievances in the matter of suitable clothing?

Sir A. Sinclair: The clothing issued to members of the Royal Observer Corps is replaced on demand if it becomes unserviceable owing to age or for other reasons. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Reply which I gave him on 15th October.

Mr. Sorensen: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received the information which I sent him regarding some of the complaints that have been sent to me? Is it not true that warm clothing has not been issued to many of these men since the early part of the war?

Sir A. Sinclair: I understand that warm clothing is available at all the posts. If the hon. Member is still not satisfied, I will look into the matter again.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is not warm clothing available for only a certain number and is handed from one man to another when they go on watch?.

Sir A. Sinclair: That is the best we can do at the present.

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (SOUTH WALES FACTORY).

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he is aware that, at a certain South Wales

factory, some 90 men engaged upon aircraft production have been rendered idle for some time; that many thousands of skilled man-hours have been lost; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent this misuse of these national resources?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Montague): The firm referred to by my hon. Friend is not in direct contractual relations with my Ministry. I have ascertained that a shortage of materials at the firm's factory resulted in about 50 men being temporarily rendered idle. The supply position has now been remedied and all the men are back at work.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that because this matter was raised in the House of Commons this firm has had its contract cut by one half, and that only to-day the local Employment Exchange has been notified that a number of jigs had to be destroyed and that 60 skilled men will be unemployed at the end of this week?

Mr. Montague: I will look into that point, and I hope the hon. Member will consult with me.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES.

BARBADOS (CONSTITUTION).

Dr. Morgan: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether any changes are being contemplated for the reform of the Constitution of the island Colony of Barbados, especially from the point of view of widening the franchise, or whether the same bicameral system of the centuries-old unchanged Constitution will be allowed to continue?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): No changes are in contemplation in the Constitution of Barbados.

Dr. Morgan: Will two-thirds of the population be left in perpetuity without a vote?

Mr. Hall: That is the position, I have explained, at the present time.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the hon. Gentleman really mean in perpetuity?

Mr. Hall: No, Sir, but I referred to the first reply which I gave to the Question.

TRINIDAD (HOUSING).

Dr. Morgan: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies how many houses had been built by the Government of Trinidad, British West Indies, up to February, 1939; whether the local municipality of Port of Spain, in spite of the absence of statutory powers, built nearly 40 houses; whether this state of affairs has continued; and what progress has been made on any Government housing scheme in the last two years?

Mr. George Hall: My Noble Friend is making inquiry of the officer administering the Government of Trinidad as to the exact number of houses built in the periods specified. I will communicate with my hon. Friend when a report has been received.

Dr. Morgan: Is there not an information bureau at the Colonial Office, so that we may get our information there and not by constant reference to the Governors?

Mr. Hall: It is impossible for us to keep a record of every activity of all the Governments in the Colonial service, and we must refer questions of this kind to the Governors.

ANTIGUA (HOLBERTON HOSPITAL).

Dr. Morgan: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colony Hospital in Antigua, British West Indies, is still in the state it was in February, 1939, badly in need of repair, with rotten floors, leaking roofs, broken doors and poor sanitation; whether temporary repairs have yet been done; and when is it proposed to rebuild the hospital properly so that good medical work for the island inhabitants may be done?

Mr. George Hall: Owing to the financial position of the Colony, it has only been possible in recent years to effect the minimum running repairs to the Holberton Hospital in Antigua. The question of rebuilding the hospital, which is agreed to be necessary, has been considered by the Comptroller for Development and Welfare in consultation with the Governor. Plans will be drawn up by a qualified hospital architect now in the West Indies. This architect will shortly be undertaking a survey of hospital buildings in the Eastern Caribbean Colonies and British Guiana,

financed by a grant under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act.

Dr. Morgan: May I take it that in the meantime repairs have been done to make this hospital fit for use?

Mr. Hall: As I said in my Reply, running repairs are being carried out.

DETENTION (MISS MURIEL LESTER).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether Miss Muriel Lester is still detained in the West Indies; what specific charge has been made against her; whether she has appealed to, or will appear before, the advisory tribunal; and whether a report of the proceedings before the tribunal respecting this and other cases will be published, or made available to Members of this House?

Mr. George Hall: My Noble Friend understands that Miss Lester is still detained in Trinidad pending the necessary arrangements being made for her to travel to the United Kingdom. As regards the second part of the Question, Miss Lester was detained under the Trinidad Defence Regulations and no question of preferring a charge against her arose. As regards the third part of the Question, Miss Lester is entitled to make an objection to the Advisory Committee, but I am not aware whether she has done so. As regards the fourth part of the Question, it would not be in the public interest to publish or make available in any other way the report of the Advisory Committee in this or any other case of a person detained under Defence Regulations.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in fact no serious charge has been made against this lady, who is a person of the highest character; can he say whether anything is being done to provide her with proper accommodation and whether any steps are being taken to secure her transfer to some other country?

Mr. Hall: The question of transferring Miss Lester from the detention camp to a hotel is now being considered.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask my hon. Friend to reply to the other question about her release and transfer to some other country if she wishes to go?

Mr. Hall: She will be released on the condition that she returns to this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

JEWS (RECRUITMENT).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement on the contribution which the Jews in Palestine have made to the war effort, indicating how many Jews in Palestine have joined the British Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force; and what further steps are being taken to encourage recruiting among the Jews in Palestine?

Mr. George Hall: The total number of Palestinian Jews now in the Services is over 9,000, including 1,505 who are missing or prisoners. Of this total 1,575 are serving in the Royal Air Force and the remainder in various branches of the Army. A campaign for more recruits for the Army is now in progress.

Mr. Lipson: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that no obstacles are now placed in the way of Jews in Palestine who are physically fit and who wish to join one of the Fighting Services?

Mr. Hall: I can give that assurance. As a matter of fact, a campaign is proceeding at the present time to obtain recruits for the Army.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is there any chance of obtaining women for the A.T.S. in Palestine?

Mr. Hall: That is another question.

Mr. Mander: Why have so many attempts been made to hide the great contributions which the Jews are willing to make in this war?

Mr. Hall: No attempt has been made to hide any act which has been done by the Jews. That is a misapprehension.

CENSORSHIP (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION AND ANSWER).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will explain why publication was not permitted by the censor in Palestine of a Question relating to the attitude of His Majesty's Government to the policy of the Balfour Declaration asked by the honourable Member for Cheltenham on 30th July, and of the Prime Minister's reply; will he say if the objection was to the Prime Minister's answer or the honourable Member's Question or both; and will he take steps to see that the ban on publica-

tion in Palestine of this Question and answer is removed?

Mr. George Hall: I have no information regarding the matter raised in this Question, but my noble Friend will address an inquiry to the High Commissioner for Palestine.

Mr. Lipson: Will my hon. Friend find out if this was a political or military censorship, and will he make it perfectly clear to the censor in Palestine that His Majesty's Government intend that the policy of the Balfour Declaration shall be implemented?

Mr. Hall: I must await the result of the inquiry before I can commit myself in any way.

ATLANTIC CHARTER.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give an assurance that point 3 in the Atlantic Declaration will be fully implemented respecting Native colonial peoples or whether, and in what respects, this is qualified by other references in that Declaration?

Mr. George Hall: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made on this matter by the Prime Minister on 9th September in this House, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Sorensen: May I take it that the hon. Gentleman agrees that references to our existing obligations will not prevent the application of progressive measures of self-government to Colonial peoples?

Mr. Hall: I can only agree with the statement as I read it.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister the names of the financial advisers who accompanied him on his visit to meet the President of the United States of America in the Atlantic?

The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): No financial advisers attended the Atlantic meeting on either side; no financial issues were discussed.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR TRANSPORT.

LONDON UNDERGROUND STATIONS (IDENTIFICATION).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry


of War Transport whether he will consult with experts as to the best way of assisting passengers on the Underground Railway to identify stations as they pass, in view of the dim lighting of stations, the shrouding of carriage windows and the indistinct voices of women porters?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of War Transport (Colonel Llewellin): On open stations lighting and the size of lettering are restricted by regulation, but the lights are placed so as to make the best use of the permitted illumination, and staff have been instructed to announce stops clearly. The Board are considering altering the position of the openings in the protective netting on the windows and enlarging them.

Sir P. Hurd: Would it not be a good thing to supply women porters with megaphones so that they could be heard?

Colonel Llewellin: I do not think we ought to make aspersions on these women, who are doing extremely good work and are helping the railways very much in the present situation.

Mr. Gallacher: Why not supply some of the male porters with an interpreter?

Mr. F. Anderson: Would it not be better if microphones were put in the trains to enable either the driver or the guard to announce the name of the station?

LOCAL CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES, GLAMORGAN.

Mr. Pearson: asked the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, whether he will state the personnel of, and interests represented upon, the local consultative committees in Glamorgan relied upon for advice by the Regional Transport Commissioner covering passenger transport?

Colonel Llewellin: As the answer consists of a two-page table of places and names, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, send it to him.

Mr. Pearson: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether the public are adequately represented on these committees?

Colonel Llewellin: There are columns in the list for railway interests, road transport undertakings, trade unions, the Ministry of Labour and general traders.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

MAYORAL MANIFESTO (BROADCASTING).

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Information whether he has considered the manifesto issued by the Lord Mayor of Manchester and the mayors of Salford and Stretford, a copy of which has been sent to him; and, in view of the national lead it gives and the responsible source from which it comes, whether he will ask the British Broadcasting Corporation to broadcast it?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): When the manifesto in question was originally issued, the Ministry of Information took steps to bring it to the attention of religious leaders both at home and abroad. It also received considerable Press publicity. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by broadcasting it now.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Minister think that a national lead of this kind should receive wide publicity over the air?

Mr. Bracken: A courageous lead of that kind ought to receive the widest publicity.

Mr. Thorne: Where can we get the text of that manifesto?

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: Could not a copy of it be placed in the Library?

PROPAGANDA (PUBLISHING AND PAPER INDUSTRIES).

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Information whether he will consult with the Ministers of Supply and Labour in order to establish a definite policy for the publishing and paper industries, in view of the importance of this question to propaganda?

Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir. I am fully aware of the problem presented by the industries in question and will certainly undertake to discuss it with my right hon. Friends who are primarily responsible for these industries.

Mr. Lindsay: Is the Minister aware that there is a growing shortage of technical books for the Forces, and will he do everything he can to overcome that difficulty?

Mr. Bracken: I shall certainly do everything in my power, but I have to secure


the consent of the Minister of Supply, and I cannot pledge him without his authority. I have also to get the consent of the Minister of Labour, but we arc going to have a meeting soon to see what we can do about it.

NEWS DISSEMINATION (REUTERS, LIMITED).

Mr. Clement Davies: asked the Minister of Information whether the proposed sale of one-half of the issued shares in Renters, Limited, by the Press Association, Limited, to the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, Limited, as trustee for the London newspapers, has been considered in relation to Reuters being the main source of supply of overseas news to the British Broadcasting Corporation, and of home and overseas news to the Empire and foreign news agencies and newspapers; and whether, in view of this and of certain facilities which Reuters enjoy, His Majesty's Government have considered making the continuance of the supply to the British Broadcasting Corporation and those facilities being dependent upon the control of Reuters being representative of British interests and not merely of the Press?

Mr. Bracken: His Majesty's Government are aware of these negotiations, but I have no statement to make at present.

Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend consider it in the best interests of the public that the collection and dissemination, of news, especially to and through the B.B.C., should be in the hands of a few London newspaper proprietors?

Mr. Bracken: I do not think that we should prejudge this question at the moment, because we are having meetings with all the parties concerned very soon, and I should not like to say anything that might prejudice any arrangement which might ultimately be effected.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Is it not the case that the final decision on this subject is to be taken to-morrow, and will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that no vital decision is taken until the Government have considered it?

Mr. Bracken: I do not think my right hon. Friend is right in saying that the final decision will be taken to-morrow. To a large extent the parties concerned have sold the shares—the Press Association has sold the shares—but the Chan-

cellor of the Exchequer and I are negotiating with the representatives of the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the Press Association. The negotiations are rather difficult, and I think it would be liable to prejudice them if we were to discuss them now. I can give the House an assurance that we share the anxieties of hon. Members, and will do everything in our power to secure and protect the public interest.

Sir Percy Harris: Do the Government realise that this agency has now an almost complete monopoly of receiving and sending news, and that it is vital in the public interest that this monopoly should be under some kind of public control?

Mr. Bracken: As a matter of fact, the monopoly has existed for quite a long time. Reuters have been owned by the Press Association practically 100 per cent. They now propose to sell, or have sold, 50 per cent. of the shares to the Newspaper Proprietors Association.

Mr. Storey: Is it not a fact that in the past the shares in this undertaking have been very widely held, through the Press Association, and that under the deal, if it goes through, the London papers will not only hold half the shares in Reuters but will, through their provincial editions and their allied newspapers, hold a large interest in the Press Association? Is he further aware that the trust which it is proposed to set up in connection with this matter has no real powers, that the trustees will not hold the shares, that the trustees, although they will appoint the directors, will have to appoint those nominated by the shareholders, that the trust is revocable, and that it is not representative of other newspaper interests?

Mr. Bracken: Yes, I am quite well aware of all those points, and they are being very carefully considered by His Majesty's Government at the present moment.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Before anything is done which will destroy the independence of Reuters, will my right hon. Friend give this House an opportunity of expressing its opinion before any irrevocable step is taken?

Mr. Bracken: As a matter of fact, Reuters at the present moment is a private business. The Government are big cus-


tomers of Reuters, and that is the only influence which they can exercise over the concern, other than nationalising it or starting their own news agency. Hon. Members can see that these are very large points of principle. I share all my hon. Friends' anxieties about the future of Reuters, and the Government have borne all the points expressed this morning very much in mind.

Sir A. Southby: Will my right hon. Friend answer my question?

Mr. C. Davies: In view of the last reply given by my right hon. Friend, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

POSTAL DELIVERIES.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters despatched to addresses within 100 miles are frequently not delivered within 36 hours of collection; and whether he will give an assurance that, week-ends excepted, letters posted before a prescribed time on any day will normally be delivered in the course of the following day to addresses within 150 miles radius?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): There may be isolated instances of such delay to letters posted in remote rural areas addressed to similar areas, but I am not aware of any general delay such as that mentioned in the first part of the Question. I am pleased to give the assurance asked for in the second part of the Question, except that I must exclude letters posted in and addressed to remote areas, and those which may be mistreated. If the hon. Member will write to me giving full particulars of any cases he has in mind, I shall be happy to make an inquiry.

Sir J. Mellor: While I will gladly supply my right hon. Friend with the particular cases, will he say whether any departmental check is kept on the normal times which elapse between collection and delivery?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. A constant check is kept departmentally, and the general position, I am satisfied, is as I have said. I shall be glad to look into

any cases where inquiry may result in a better service.

Mr. James Hall: Is, the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some London suburbs deliveries are now an hour and a half or two hours later than previously?

Mr. Morrison: There has been a change in the hours of collection in order to make the best use of the daylight that exists. While I cannot go into any individual question without particulars, I shall be glad to look into the matter if my hon. Friend will let me have details.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (ACOUSTICS).

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he will make a statement concerning the steps he has taken to improve the acoustics of the Chamber?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): I presume that I am anticipating the wishes of the House if I speak up in answering this Question. I had the benefit of advice from officials of the National Physical Laboratory, and measures recommended by them were carried out during the recent Recess. The work involved fixing absorbent tiles in the windows, glass silk quilting in the panels at the south end of the Chamber and a sounding board over the Press Gallery. If hon. Members will make a point of addressing their remarks to the Chair it should be found that a considerable improvement has taken place. The technical problems presented are, however, extremely difficult, and it is to be doubted whether they can be completely solved.

Mr. Hannah: Will the present arrangements, such as the sounding board, be permanent or temporary?

Mr. Hicks: They will remain until something more effective is found.

Mr. Higgs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that members of the Press Gallery at times have considerable difficulty in hearing Members' speeches, and often their reports are not fully published?

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not because some Members are too idle to speak up?

ROYAL NAVY (FLEET ORDER).

Sir W. Smithers: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will inform the House of the terms of a Fleet Order dated 28th November, 1940?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): Yes, Sir. The Fleet Order, which was printed for posting on Notice Boards, reads as follows:
In the conviction that the present war is a struggle between good and evil, and that in the practice of the Christian Religion may be found to-day the same support experienced by our Forefathers in establishing in the Royal Navy those ideals of service and sacrifice which we have inherited:
Their Lordships, whilst appreciating that under conditions of war, the instructions regarding Sunday work can seldom be realised, wish to emphasise the need for observing the instructions for the holding of Divine Service and Prayers.
They further direct that in battleships and cruisers all possible steps should be taken to provide a space set apart for the worship of God.

Sir W. Smithers: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to bring that Fleet Order to the notice of the heads of the other two Services and his colleagues in the Cabinet, and ask them if they can issue a similar Order?

Sir V. Warrender: This Fleet Order was issued after consultation with, and advice from, the Chaplain-General of the Fleet. My right hon. Friend has no doubt that his colleagues in the other Service Departments have an equal opportunity of consulting with, and obtaining advice from, their Chaplains-General.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the hon. Gentle-man aware that some Members representing maritime constituencies have received letters from constituents complaining that denominational difficulties have arisen in regard to attendance at divine service, and can he say that these matters are receiving attention at the Admiralty?

Sir V. Warrender: They are constantly under consideration, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that there are considerable difficulties.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (APPOINTMENT AS JUSTICES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Attorney-. General whether any rule obtains as to

appointing a Member of Parliament to be a justice of the peace for the area of his own constituency; and whether it is usual for Members of Parliament, who were already justices of the peace for the area they represent before election, to remain as such and to sit on the local bench?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): Successive Lord Chancellors have maintained a general rule that a Member of Parliament should not be appointed a J.P. for the area of his own constituency, and my noble Friend, the present Lord Chancellor, has directed that this rule should be maintained. There is, of course, no legal disqualification for an M.P. who is already a J.P. to act as a Justice of the Peace in his own area, and it must be left to individual discretion to decide whether he should take part in magisterial work during the period of his Parliamentary representation.

Mr. Mander: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he considers it sound justice that the same individual should exercise both political and judicial functions in the same area at the same time?

The Attorney-General: I do not see any objection to a Member who has previously sat as a Justice of the Peace continuing so to sit when elected a Member of this House. If any Member thinks otherwise, I would not quarrel with his view.

Mr. Wedgwood: Have not Members of the House been Justices of the Peace ever since there were Justices of the Peace?

The Attorney-General: That is one of the things I had in mind in expressing the view I did.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that Recorders are specifically prohibited by Statute from exercising their functions in the areas where they are Members of Parliament?

The Attorney-General: I had that in mind, but that is a different case. In the course of our history there must have been innumerable cases in which Members of this House were Justices of the Peace of the locality they represented and continued to sit as Justices of the Peace.

Mr. Messer: Is it the suggestion that Members of this House cannot be impartial?

TENEMENTS (INSURANCE).

Mr. Mainwaring: asked the Attorney-General whether he has been made aware of the widespread activities of landowners and estate agents in seeking to compel owners of tenements to increase the amount of the insurances upon these properties upon the pretext that the cost of replacement in the event of damage by fire, &c, is now one-third in excess of pre-war costs; and will he take some steps to check the tendency of these people to make such increasing demands?

The Attorney-General: I am not aware of action of this kind on the part of landlords or their agents. If the hon. Member will send me particulars of the cases which he has in mind, I will be glad to consider them.

Mr. Mainwaring: Has it not already been reported that this practice is widespread throughout the country? I shall certainly supply the information that the right hon. and learned Gentleman desires.

The Attorney-General: My noble Friend has had no information to that effect, but I shall be very glad to receive the hon. Member's information.

INDIA (ARMY AND AIR FORCE FITTERS, TRAINING).

Major Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for India whether Army and Air Force training schools for fitters for practical work in the field have been established in India; and whether he is satisfied that a long-term view has been taken; that the numbers under training are adequate; and that the instructional staff is sufficient and competent?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I have asked for a report on the subject from the Government of India. I know that such schools have been established and I am confident that both the Commander-in-Chief and the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief in India have taken a long view and are making the fullest use of the resources available.

CONSTABULARY, ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES.

Mr. F. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for War the appropriate organisation for dealing with conditions of service and grievances for constabulary stationed at Royal Ordnance factories; and what machinery is in operation for dealing with cases of discipline for the constabulary stationed at Royal Ordnance factories?

Mr. Sandys: Representations with regard to conditions of service or grievances of War Department constabulary stationed at Royal Ordnance factories may be made by individual constables to the senior constabulary officer of the station concerned. Moreover, any constable may apply to see the Chief Constable of the Force on such matters. With regard to the second part of the Question, all breaches of the code of discipline laid down for these constables, are referred to the Chief Constable for decision.

Mr. Anderson: Why is there no machinery for dealing with these cases in bulk, not only individually? Surely the same machinery could be put into operation as is in operation for the ordinary constabulary?

Mr. Sandys: If my hon. Friend is referring to the question of whether an association could be formed to deal with these matters, the position is that the constables are at liberty to form an association within the force, if they so desire, but that in fact they have not as yet decided to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CLOTHES RATIONING.

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will reduce the number of coupons to be surrendered for a pair of men's socks below the three at present required, in view of the fact that a pair of average weight socks takes less than three ounces of wool and the present ration of wool is two ounces for a coupon, and a woman can obtain a pair of hip-length woollen stockings for two coupons?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): No, Sir. The present supply position would not permit of such a reduction.

Mr. Lipson: Will my hon. and gallant Friend explain how he comes to be a party to treating men worse than women in this matter?

Captain Waterhouse: I should be very sorry to admit being a party to any such thing

COFFEE LICENCE (PROSECUTION).

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information in connection with the firm of Biggins and Company who were charged at the Mansion House, on Tuesday, 14th October, along with Biggins and Bouldstrige, for making a false statement, thereby obtaining a licence for the importation of 630 bags of Columbian coffee instead of 500 bags; and what action he intends taking about the matter?

Captain Waterhouse: This company applied for a licence for 500 bags, which was granted. They subsequently applied for an additional licence for 130 bags, supplying false information in support thereof. Proceedings were taken and a conviction obtained. No further action is contemplated.

BASES (LEASING TO UNITED STATES).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that no further commitments with regard to the leasing of naval, military or air bases to the United States of America will be made without first consulting this House, and that wherever advisable the free use of such bases shall be granted?

Sir J. Anderson: As regards the first part of his Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 3rd December last; as regards the second part, he may feel assured that His Majesty's Government are bearing this consideration in mind.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while probably everybody agrees with our giving the use of the bases freely to the Americans, there is a growing body of opinion opposed to the leasing of such bases?

Sir A. Southby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this House has never had any opportunity of discussing the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION.

NUFFIELD SURVEY.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether the educational investigation now being conducted by the Nuffield Survey is undertaken with his official sanction; whether it also has the sanction of the Board of Education and other Departments concerned; and what is its object?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The extension of the Social Reconstruction Survey conducted by Nuffield College to cover certain aspects of education is undertaken with the approval and full sanction of the Board of Education. The programme of inquiry, which is concerned in the first instance with the effect of war conditions on the service, was drawn up in consultation with the Board.

PLANNING.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether any decision has been reached on the advisability of setting up a central planning authority; whether it is proposed to appoint two sets of regional officials from two Government Departments to advise on land planning; and to whom such officials are responsible?

Mr. Greenwood: I hope to have an early opportunity of making a statement to the House on certain aspects of my work, including the issues which my hon. Friend's Question raises. Perhaps he will be good enough to await the statement.

Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend see that there are not two different sets of regional officials appointed, as such a method would be extremely wasteful and inefficient?

Mr. Greenwood: I think that when the hon. Member hears my statement he will see what is to be done.

Mr. Mander: Will the statement be made on the introduction of the proposed legislation?

Mr. Greenwood: I would not like to say without notice, because I have to consult about it, but it is very possible.

Captain McEwen: Could my right hon. Friend say, in general, how many advisers go to the making of one plan?

Mr. Greenwood: Not without notice— and not even with notice.

WAR INVENTIONS.

Major Lyons: asked the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of the present limitations of the smaller manufacturer, he is satisfied that the existing machinery and organisation of the Department of Scientific Research provide adequate facilities for the experimentation and manufacture and test of likely inventions and forms of apparatus which may be submitted to it for war purposes; and whether he will procure and make available in approved cases a number of small factories able to undertake general development of work of this kind?

Sir J. Anderson: Inventions and suggestions for war purposes submitted to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are immediately sent forward for expert examination by the appropriate Defence or Supply Ministry. I am satisfied that the existing organisation of the Department is adequate to carry out the preliminary sifting required. Responsibility for further action on such submissions, including experimentation, manufacture, or testing, rests on the Ministry concerned. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Major Lyons: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the present obstacles which appear to be put in the way, on every hand, of members of the public in this matter?

Sir J. Anderson: I have given very close personal attention to this matter myself. I am aware of the feeling to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. There is, in fact, in my opinion, no justification for it. If I may give my reasons in a few words, they are that, in the first place, a great many people who come forward with suggestions, who think they have a useful idea, have really travelled a very short distance along an already well-trodden road, but, for reasons of security, it is in most cases quite impossible for the Department to explain to those persons exactly what is being done and what has been achieved. Almost inevitably, some sense of frustration is caused when that happens. The other kind of case in my experience is where someone comes forward with a proposal or an idea which undoubtedly is soundly based, but the Department after considering the extent to which resources,

material and knowledge and skill might have to be employed to develop the idea to the full, come to the conclusion that those resources, materials, and knowledge and skill might be more profitably diverted to other channels.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

IRON RAILINGS, CARLISLE.

Mr. J. Henderson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether he is aware that the Carlisle Corporation has been refused a permit to obtain the necessary material to erect barriers in order to regulate omnibus passenger queues in the interests of public safety; that during this last month this corporation was compelled to agree to 16 applications for enclosing grave spaces with iron railings because they possess no legal powers to refuse same; and what action does he contemplate taking in these matters?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The first part of the Question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport. As regards the second part of the Question, the Town Clerk of the City of Carlisle has been asked to furnish particulars in order that the matter may be taken up.

MOLASSES (THEFT CHARGE).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether he can give any information in connection with two officials of his Ministry who were charged at South-end, on Thursday, with stealing, and wrongfully disposing of, 232 tons of molasses belonging to the Government; and whether any organisation was connected with the stealing?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The two persons who have been charged with larceny of molasses are not officials of the Ministry of Supply. It would not be proper to make any statement on the matter whilst the criminal proceedings are in progress.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

SURFACE MINE WORKERS.

Mr. Price: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why


surface workers in mines are not permitted the same extra food rations which are accorded to underground workers in mines?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): The special ration of cheese was provided to meet the needs of categories of workers for whom the provision of adequate canteen facilities was impracticable and who required to take suitable food with them to their work. I think my hon. Friend will agree that in this respect the surface mine worker is not in the same position as the underground worker.

Mr. Price: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend know that surface men in many coalfields consider that they have as severe work to perform as those who work underground, and is there not a case for looking into their condition in this respect?

Major Lloyd George: I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that it is almost impossible to draw a satisfactory line. We have done our best with the advice available to us, and we hope very much that the canteen programme that we have in mind will do a lot to meet the need for surface workers' meals.

NATIONAL WHEATMEAL FLOUR.

Captain Gammans: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why the use of national wheatmeal flour is not made compulsory if, as stated in the Ministry of Food public announcements, its use would effect a saving of 20 per cent. in shipping space?

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 8th October.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it is often impossible for customers to get this bread from bakers, and is there no way of telling them of available supplies?

Major Lloyd George: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would let me know of any cases. I shall be very glad to take action.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the policy with regard to the production of wholewheat bread, embodying the advice of the scientific advisory com-

mittee, is being carried out; and whether specific instructions have been given to the millers that flour for the 85 per cent. loaf is to include all the valuable nutritional constituents of the wheat and exclude the bran and pollards?

Major Lloyd George: I presume the hon. Member in referring to wholewheat bread has in mind the national wheatmeal loaf of 85 per cent. extraction, the specification for which was approved by the Scientific Food Policy Committee and the Medical Research Council. Precise instructions on how to prepare this particular type of meal were circulated to all millers. These instructions lay down that the flour should contain the greater part of the germ and that the coarse bran and part of the pollards should be excluded.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that some of the millers are not carrying out this instruction, and will he consent to meet me and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Prof. Hill) in the Strangers' dining room after Questions, when I can demonstrate to him and any other Members that the proper instructions are not being carried out?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot say that there is not one that is not carried out. You do, of course, come across cases where the instruction is not carried out, and we take action. We have a system by which we do take it, and I can assure my hon. Friend that action is taken.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Why are not people told on the B.B.C. that the wheatmeal loaf is infinitely superior to any white bread?

Major Lloyd George: We have used every kind and system of publicity, and while I myself have not heard it on the B.B.C., I have certainly seen advertisements which have definitely drawn attention to the merits of wheatmeal.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is the Minister aware that many people apply for wheatmeal bread and cannot get it?

Major Lloyd George: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to let me know of any cases, I will look into them.

Professor A. V. Hill: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say why it is possible to obtain a large number of different samples of so-called wholemeal bread


containing anything from none up to the whole of the grain, and why is it so difficult for anyone but one of the larger bakers to obtain the proper stuff?

Major Lloyd George: If my hon. Friend will give me any information, I shall be glad to look into it.

Sir H. Williams: To what extent does the conflict between animal feeding-stuffs and human feeding-stuffs cause short supplies to bakers?

FISH (ICELAND).

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has any statement to make in respect of the cessation of deep-sea fishing by the Iceland fishing fleet as a result of the level at which fish prices have been fixed by his Department?

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food how the decision of the Icelandic authorities to lay up their entire deep-sea trawler fleet owing to the unprofitable sale of fish owing to price regulation will affect British supplies of fish?

Major Lloyd George: For a variety of reasons the deep-sea trawler fleet of Iceland has taken only a small part in catching fish for the British market since the spring of this year. I am satisfied that the level of maximum prices now fixed is fair and reasonable.

Sir H. Williams: Has the Minister seen the public statement that the laying-up of this fleet was due to the fact that they cannot get adequate prices in this country?

Major Lloyd George: I am very sorry, but I cannot accept that statement. This laying-up has been going on since last March, as I said in my Answer, due to a variety of reasons, and the question of price should not be one of them, for I should say that, generally speaking, they are about double what they were before the war.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether any steps are being taken to encourage the restarting of this fleet, especially when there is such a shortage in the country?

Mr. Cluse: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the public complaints as to the short supply of fish; is he satisfied that the scarcity of fish is not caused by faulty co-operation of his Department with Icelandic fish interests; and whether he will take all possible measures to accelerate the transit of fish from Iceland?

Major Lloyd George: I am aware that fish supplies, both British caught and imported, during the month of October, have been below normal and that this has given rise to public comment. The shortage in recent weeks is largely due to the weather conditions prevailing around Iceland since mid-September. It is not due to lack of co-operation with the Icelandic authorities. Everything possible is being done to accelerate transit of fish from Iceland.

Mr. Cluse: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend do his best to increase the supply of fish?

Major Lloyd George: We are doing everything we possibly can. We have been able to reduce the price, and distribution is much better than it was considering the small amount of fish available.

MEAT TRANSPORT, BURNLEY.

Mr. Burke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why it is proposed to change the system for the transportation of meat from the Burnley abattoirs, seeing that the present system, which was set up by the area meat committee, has given satisfaction to all concerned?

Major Lloyd George: The provision of road transport for meat is now undertaken by the Ministry of War Transport. The change to which my hon. Friend refers will, it is anticipated, result in a saving in fuel and vehicles, but will not impair the efficient distribution of meat to retailers at Burnley.

Mr. Burke: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say why this scheme has been changed, seeing that this has been done by the local retailers since 1939 at a cost of one-eighth of a penny a lb., whereas the Wholesale Meat Supply Association gets 2½ per cent. on the 1938 turnover and has already made a profit of £85,000?

Major Lloyd George: This is taking the country as a whole. It is, I believe, possible that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the transport used may remain as it is, but this is purely a question of trying to save transport where it can be saved, and I have no doubt that a great deal can be saved.

Mr. Burke: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that the particular area to which I have referred can carry on as heretofore?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot say in that particular area, but it may be the case in some areas.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Do we understand that the expense at the present time will be less than the supposed or expected expense from the new scheme where the old scheme will still remain in particular localities?

Major Lloyd George: We are taking the question as a whole, and, as I said in my Answer, the new system is to save transport as much as possible.

VITAMIN CONCENTRATE.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the supply of basic materials, sugar and milk, for the manufacture of a vitamin concentrate particularly suited to the need of young infants, and used in large numbers of infant welfare centres, has been stopped; and what are the reasons for the cessation?

Major Lloyd George: I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. The supply of basic materials to the manufacturers of the product which he has in mind is based on their pre-war output and has not been terminated.

Mr. Adams: In view of the admitted relative shortage of sugar and milk required to enable the whole product to be produced and the hardship of the lack of this concentrate, cannot this small amount be granted for its manufacture?

Major Lloyd George: Everyone knows that if you treated one company in this way, all others would want to be treated similarly, and this would mean a considerable increase in the supply of materials all round.

WHEAT FLOUR (CALCIUM).

Mr. Bernard Taylor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what amount of calcium is added to the wheat flour; and how long has this practice been in operation?

Major Lloyd George: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, calcium is not at present being added to wheat flour. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

HORSEFLESH.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that, since the Order No. 1492, which fixes the price of raw meat for dogs, cats and other domestic animals at 8d. per pound, became effective, such meat is almost unobtainable; that a number of retail shops, known as Pussy's Butchers or Bonzo's Butchers, have ceased to deal in meat or food for animals and have transformed their business to sell horseflesh for human consumption only at prices up to 1s. 4d. per pound; and whether he can now make a statement or issue a further order governing the price and sale of this class of meat?

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 15th October to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). I understand that meat for feeding animals is on sale in many areas within the maximum prices prescribed in the Order.

Mr. Walkden: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend recognise that this particular sale of horseflesh is the biggest ramp that is in existence at the present time and is the worst black market that we have operating by the same people who are running other black markets?

Major Lloyd George: If my hon. Friend will look at the answer that I gave last week, he will see that I said that steps are being taken now to control these sales.

Mr. Walkden: Does the Minister recognise the urgency of the action indicated in the Question?

Major Lloyd George: Certainly.

WHITE FLOUR (NORTHERN IRELAND).

Dr. Little: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether


he is aware that there is a serious shortage of white flour, especially in the Northwest of Northern Ireland, owing to the illicit transport of large quantities of this commodity across the border; and whether he will take steps to put an end to this wholesale smuggling and the ramp in white flour?

Major Lloyd George: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question is in the negative. The last analysis of flour stocks in the hands of millers and importers showed a considerably higher stock per head of the population in Northern Ireland than the average throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. The second part of my hon. Friend's Question does therefore not arise.

Dr. Little: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that a great deal of white flour in Northern Ireland is being taken across the border, and will he take steps to conserve it, as we require all the flour we possess?

Major Lloyd George: I am aware that this has happened, and steps were taken to deal with that matter. It obviously cannot be a very serious one when, as I say, stocks are higher than in any other part of the country.

FLOUR (PRICES).

Mr. Riley: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the Order which came into operation on 6th October fixing the maximum retail prices of flour is causing great dissatisfaction among consumers in the West Riding of Yorkshire; that it is a common practice in the West Riding of Yorkshire for housewives to bake their own bread; that the new maximum retail prices mean an increase of 4½d. per stone in the cost of flour to the housewife; and will he consider what alteration in the Order he can make to meet this difficulty?

Major Lloyd George: I am aware that some dissatisfaction has been expressed by housewives in the West Riding of Yorkshire over recent increases in the price of flour. I must point out, however, that while it is a common practice for many North country housewives to bake their own bread, a large proportion

of them buy bread from shops. The retail price of flour which was previously uncontrolled, can now be increased only within the limits of the maximum prices laid down. As the average housewives' weekly consumption of flour for bread making in the area referred to is not likely to exceed a stone, the present maximum price cannot be considered a great hardship. All flour is still heavily subsidised, and the price is low. My Noble Friend does not therefore see his way to alter the Order.

Mr. Riley: Does the Parliamentary Secretary dispute the allegation in the Question of an increase of 4½d. per stone of flour for home baking, and if he does not dispute it, does he think that it is justified, and can he do something to find a remedy?

Major Lloyd George: It is advisable that we should differentiate between flour used for baking and flour used for other purposes, and this is the reason for the alteration. An increase of 4½d. a stone is something under ½d. per lb., and I believe that I am right in saying that, with this increase, it will still be cheaper to bake at home than to buy of the baker.

DEPARTMENTAL INFORMATION.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will explain the methods adopted for informing the general public of the Orders, Regulations, instructions and advice issued by his Department?

Major Lloyd George: The general public is informed of the Orders, Regulations, instructions and advice issued by my Department by the following means:—

(1) Press announcements issued to the National and Provincial Press;
(2) Regular Press Conferences;
(3) Broadcasts in the special announcements period after the 6 p.m. news, in the Kitchen Front programmes at 8.15 a.m., and at other times as may be needed;
(4) Advertisements in the Press.

In addition the public can get information regarding new regulations from the local food offices. Advice on cookery and food economy is provided by means of food advice centres, lectures and demonstrations throughout the country as well as by leaflets obtainable from the Ministry.

Sir J. Mellor: Could my right hon. and gallant Friend arrange for copies of the Regulations to be published in food shops for reference?

Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend will realise that it is rather a big task, especially when we are trying to save paper. To put all Regulations and Orders in every shop is, I think, quite unnecessary.

Mr. Thorne: When does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman intend to broadcast about the work of his Department?

COLONIAL WINES.

Dr. Little: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that, prior to the outbreak of war, much concern was caused by the great increase in the consumption of cheap colonial wines of high alcoholic content and that magistrates in Great Britain, as well as a Select Committee in Northern Ireland, have pointed out the evil resulting from this increase; and whether he can make a statement of the Government's attitude to the trade demand for increased facilities for the importation of these highly intoxicating wines at the present time?

Major Lloyd George: I am informed that there is some evidence that in the past some drunkenness was caused by the consumption of the cheaper kinds of Colonial wine which had been adulterated by the purchaser after sale. There is no evidence which would justify discrimination against Colonial wine. With regard to ~he last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) on 2nd October.

Dr. Little: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that this wine is seriously endangering the health of the nation and interfering with our war effort?

Major Lloyd George: Apart from altar wine, no wine is being imported at the present time.

FRENCH NORTH AFRICA (SHIPMENTS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he has any information as to the extant to which Vichy vessels are taking supplies from Northern Africa to Italy?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): While there have been occasional shipments direct from French North Africa to Italian ports, there has been no regular traffic by Vichy ships on these routes. As my right hon. Friend has on several occasions informed the House, substantial quantities of goods are shipped from North Africa to Unoccupied France, and of these cargoes a high proportion is appropriated by the enemy. The Italian share of these pickings, while not inconsiderable, is, of course, much smaller than the German.

Sir T. Moore: May I assume that the hon. Gentleman's Department is taking all possible precautions to prevent food reaching Unoccupied France and a continued distribution of food to Italy or any other of our enemies anywhere?

Mr. Foot: We are very conscious of the need for doing everything we can to stop this leakage in our blockade. The position in the Western Mediterranean has been explained to the House on more than one occasion. It is relevant in this connection to point out that Vichy ships which enter our danger zones in the Mediterranean do so at their peril and that since the beginning of June this year five Vichy ships have been sunk in these zones.

SHALLOTS FOR PLANTING (PRICES).

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that members of allotment associations are being charged 2s. 3d. to 3s. per pound for shallots, the retail price of which was about 9d. in December, 1939, while the price of shallots for food, which are the same as those used for seed, is controlled at 5d. per pound; and whether he will take steps to protect growers against such exactions?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): Yes, Sir. But shallots for planting are normally imported from Mediterranean countries,, principally Greece. Limited supplies produced in this country are taken from specially selected stock and in view of the extra labour, time and trouble necessary for raising and harvesting, the charging of a price for shallots for planting higher


than that of shallots for food is inevitable. Under the provisions of the Onions (Maximum Prices) Order, 1941, which came into force on 13th of this month, shallots may not, however, be sold retail, for any purpose, in excess of 5d. per pound except under and in accordance with the terms of a licence granted by or on behalf of the Minister of Food. Before issuing such a licence in respect of sales of shallots for planting the Minister of Food will consult with my right hon. Friend and satisfy himself that the price proposed to be charged is not excessive.

Sir P. Hurd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these exorbitant charges are being made for vegetable seeds generally over a wide range? Cannot he do something more effective?

Mr. Williams: I am just as anxious as anyone else to avoid exploiting the voluntary producer in any form, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking all the necessary steps to prevent it.

Mr. Stephen: Can my right hon. Friend say where shallots are to be obtained?

ANGLO-MEXICAN RELATIONS.

Mr. Lees-Smith: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with regard to the relations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Mexico?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have followed with interest a series of declarations and actions by which President Camacho and the Mexican Government have shown their clear-sighted appreciation of the issues raised by the aggressive actions of the Axis Powers, as well as the Mexican Government's devotion to the principles of democratic Government. His Majesty's Government have regretted the interruption of diplomatic relations with Mexico. An exchange of views has assured them that President Camacho reciprocates this feeling, and it is the intention of the two Governments to appoint Ministers as soon as possible in Mexico City and London.

Mr. Thorne: I think we ought to congratulate the Foreign Office on coming to

this agreement, because for the last two or three years I have been trying to get a settlement of the Shell Oil Company dispute. I take it for granted that this is all settled now?

Mr. Eden: What has happened is that we have made it plain to the Mexican Government that we fully maintain our attitude in respect of the oil dispute.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman take up at the earliest convenient moment, through the new diplomatic representatives, the question of the release of a large number of German internees in Mexico? Can he say anything about this matter, which is very serious?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would let us establish our relations first.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Report from the Committee on Public Petitions brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

RAILWAYS AGREEMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. James Stuart.]

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: On this Motion I desire to raise the question of the Railways Agreement as set out in the White Paper which has been published for our information. I make no apology for so doing, because I venture to assert—and I believe the House as a whole will agree with me— that the proper use of transport and our railway system in particular is a question of major importance in the prosecution of the war. It is no exaggeration to say that wars can be lost by the failure of transport. Indeed, a study of history will bear this out. To give one example, I do not think it will be denied that one of the causes which made the Russian drive fail in the war of 1914–18 was that the railway system of that country was so inefficiently handled that lines became congested and the necessary supplies could not reach the front to sustain their troops in their fight against the armies of the Kaiser.
One other fact of particular importance has to be borne in mind as far as this country is concerned at the present time. The coastal shipping trade has to a very large extent been put out of action, so that almost the whole of our domestic transport has to be carried by our internal communications—road, rail, river and canal, and airways. When it is remembered that to our peace-time civilian requirements there has to be added to-day the enormous movement of men and materials on Government account, the magnitude of the problem must be apparent. We have in this country a fine network of railways and some of the best roads in the world, but our internal waterways were wantonly and wickedly driven out of use many years ago, and air transport has not been developed on a very extensive scale. Therefore, it is essential that road and rail should be so organised that we may extract from them the maximum of carrying power. Before I conclude my remarks, I shall pose the question as to how far the Government's policy set out in the White Paper indicates that any such organisation is being undertaken by the Government, but before I come to

that, I want to say a few words in relation to the purely financial aspect of the question.
In this matter we have to consider the White Paper in relation to the Railways Agreement of 1939–40, at present in force, which it supersedes. That Agreement was made by the Minister of Transport in Mr. Chamberlain's Government, and when it first came before the House it was opposed by my right hon. Friend who is now Home Secretary and by me, and by a large number of other hon. Members on this side of the House. Surely, it was one of the craziest bargains that a Minister of the Crown ever made with private interests, and the more its provisions have been understood, the crazier it has appeared. Indeed, I think the Minister who is to reply to this Debate will not deny that the Minister who immediately preceded the present Minister of War Transport said publicly that the more he studied it, the less he liked it; and to the general public it has always seemed to be the economics of the Mad Hatter. The basic fact of railway finance during the war is, as I have already said, that the Government have entered the field as a large user and that the railways should be run to capacity—and, in fact, are being used to a far greater extent than in peace time—and since the Government pay for these services, it would seem to follow as a consequence that both the expenses and the receipts of the companies would go up.
The Agreement provided that in so far as expenses went up, the railways could come to the Minister and demand an increase in fares and rates, and as I understand it, if they made out their case he was bound to accede to their request. No account whatever was to be taken of their increased receipts. Their profit and loss account might show a steadily improving position and yet, because their aggregate expenses went up, they were able to extract extra charges from the public. In fact, as we know, there have been, since the Agreement was made, two increases in passenger fares, and I believe increases also in freights. These profits, thus fortified, the railway companies were entitled to keep, in accordance with the Agreement, subject to certain conditions which I will now mention. There were two floors and a ceiling. The lowest floor was £39,500,000, and that the Govern-


ment guaranteed. The middle floor was £43,500,000, and the companies could keep, and I think distribute, all the profits they made up to that figure. Above that, and up to the ceiling of £68,500,000, the railway companies and the Government divided the swag, and above the ceiling the Government took the lot. The essential thing to realise is that the ceiling and the middle floor were well above the earnings of the railways in recent peace years, and even the bottom floor was about up to the average.
What was the defence of this generous treatment? It was that the railways were doing more work and that it was only reasonable that they should, in consequence, make more money. There seems to me to be a good deal of confusion behind that idea. It is quite true that the railways have been doing a much larger trade, and consequently railway servants of all grades, including the management, have had more work to do and have rightly felt that they were entitled to more pay; but the profits are not paid to the servants of the railway companies as such—they are paid to the shareholders; and for the life of me I have never been able to see why railway shareholders, admirable people though many of them may be, are entitled to differential, preferential treatment over the shareholders of other enterprises in the country. We have said to the shareholders in other enterprises that, in spite of the fact that their enterprises are working very much harder and turning out perhaps two or three, or even more, times the result they were doing before the war, and in spite of the fact that in some cases before the war they were having a rather thin time, they were not entitled to make additional money out of the war necessities of the nation. Why a different line should have been taken with the railway shareholders, I have never been able to understand. Of course, during peacetime, granted private enterprise, the railway shareholders were perfectly entitled, in common with any other shareholders, to all they could get out of their enterprise, but that they should have had this special and generous treatment in war, I have never been able to understand. Instead of treating the railway shareholders as they treat the shareholders in any other enterprise, the Government

treated them in an entirely different way.
To-day, we are being asked to substitute the policy of the White Paper for this crazy settlement of some 18 months ago. Before I conclude my remarks, I shall have much to criticise in the new policy, but I will say, in its favour, that it is, in my opinion, better than the old scheme. Gone is the absurd right of the railway companies to put up fares and rates after examining only one side of their accounts. Gone, too, are the ceiling and the middle floor. These are very substantial improvements, and I do not wish to minimise them or to suggest that the Government have not done better than their predecessors. But what is to be said on the other side? First, on the purely financial issue, the bottom floor has been put up to £43,000,000. That is, I understand, an increase of about £3.500,000, and for the period for which the agreement runs—that is during the war and for a year after—that profit is guaranteed. It is well above the average of the previous earnings of the railway companies, and, in view of that, what I have said in my earlier remarks with regard to the previous Agreement stands with regard to this figure of £43,000,000.
It must be remembered that this is not a precarious but a guaranteed amount, and, for that reason, it might have been expected that it would have been fixed at a lower rather than a. higher figure in relation to the average earnings of prewar days. Moreover, suppose that the Government had adopted a different procedure and had taken over the railways and bought them out, of course, the fixed dividend paid on what would then be Government stock would, naturally, be at a lower rate than a precariously earned profit. But I do not propose to dwell further on this aspect of the case or on the subsidiary financial provisions in this Agreement. These seem to me to remain, broadly, on the same lines as those of the previous Agreement, and in so far as they are on different lines may not yet have been finally announced. No doubt we shall have more particulars later with regard to them and possibly the Minister intends to explain some of them to-day.
I do not, as I say, propose to go further into that aspect of the question, because, important as it is that the amount which


the nation as a whole has to pay for the use of the railways should be the right amount, neither too large nor too little, there are other considerations which seem to me to be of even greater importance and which this House ought to consider. Here I come into direct conflict with the policy of the Government. They have, it seems to me, tried to find a half-way house between private ownership and State ownership, and in the result, it seems to me they have got the worst of both worlds. It is true that the State may have the ultimate say on major policy, but it obviously cannot and does not: possess control of day-to-day administration. Therefore, you have a divorce between administrative control and financial liability.
The former Agreement which I have so roundly denounced had this, at any rate, to its credit, that it did give an incentive to efficient administration and economic working. Under the present Agreement, as I see it, it will be no one's business to insist upon this. In fact, I am inclined to think that those who have direct administrative control of the railways will be encouraged in extravagance, if it is found that this will work out to the advantage of the companies in the years when they regain full control. I cannot think, therefore, that this half-way house provides either an incentive to efficient working or a means of checking extravagance. On the contrary, I think it may easily bring about inefficient or extravagant working.
After the last war the present Prime Minister stated that the railway companies were to be unified and nationalised, but that policy was subsequently whittled down to the amalgamation into "the big four," which we know at the present time. Into the question of nationalisation I do not propose to go to-day. It would certainly require legislation and, I think, would be out of Order on this Motion. But unification is a different matter, and I cannot help thinking that considerable waste must be involved in the fact that the four main line railway companies are separate entities. That waste is not, I suggest, avoided by the fact that the Railway Executive in some way combines the views of all of them. There must inevitably be conflicting interests among the separate companies. These can only be removed by unification and by work-

ing the whole railways of this country as one system. I put it to the Government and to the Minister that this is not an academic question but an urgent and practical problem which demands the immediate attention of himself and his chief and of the Government. Further, I put to him that this unification of the railways is really but one step towards a much larger unification of all transport, which, in my view, is essential to its full use.
To that aspect of the subject I shall now turn. Everyone realises that transport, in all its forms, presents really one problem. I think the Government have acknowledged that by setting up a special Ministry dealing with the whole of transport. An announcement of some plan for controlling road transport was made a few days ago through the B.B.C. I am not clear what it amounted to; it was rather vague. I do not know whether it was made in anticipation of this Debate or whether it was supposed to convey to the public a wide conception of future policy. Personally, I did not derive much consolation or enlightenment from it, but although the Government have not made it clear to me, I will assume that the Minister has it clear in his own mind and that he is going to carry out a really extensive control of the road transport system of the country. Frankly, I cannot sec that such an assumption is justified, but I accept it for the moment. I see no sign, however, of any appreciation of the fact that road and rail are not two separate and alternative methods of transport to be kept in watertight compartments, but rather two parts of one co-ordinated system.
I will put the point in administrative terms. It will not bring about the desired result if the Minister consults the Railway Executive about the use of the railways and takes certain decisions, and then, on another occasion, meets the road users to deal with their problems. Or again it will not do the whole business if he charges one set of his administrative officials with keeping in touch with the railway companies through their Executive and then charges an entirely different set of Civil servants to negotiate with and control the road transport authorities. Road and rail ought to be dovetailed together and in many cases not used merely alternatively but conjointly and concurrently.
I should be straying rather far from the subject matter of the Debate if I were to deal at any length with the use of internal waterways, but I think I am entitled to ask on this occasion how far the Minister has succeeded in rehabilitating them and, in so far as this has been done, I urge him to address himself to the same problem that I have been discussing, namely, coordination of the waterways with the employment of the two other major means of transport. With regard to air transport, I imagine that, with the heavy claims for military purposes, no great assistance can be expected from this source in carrying ordinary merchandise, but, even if transport by air is confined entirely to purposes of war, it is still an integral part of the transport of the country, and it is the duty of the Minister to collaborate with his Service colleagues to ensure that between them they survey and operate the whole field. In a word, I demand that the Minister of War Transport shall realise that he cannot perform his duty properly unless he treats all forms of transport as a single problem and relates them to one another in a single system.
Finally, I come to the question of ownership. I have no wish, even if you, Sir, allowed me, to enter on the academic field of controversy which separates the two main parties in the House on this issue, but this perhaps I may be permitted to say. I think it must be agreed on all sides that the old conception of private enterprise, with an immense number of small competing units, is gone for ever. In war, as in peace, we are moving more and more into the realm of monopoly and quasi monopoly. That involves an entirely different set of economic problems from what there was before, just as in the world of physics the mechanics of a heap of sand differs entirely from that of a pile of great rocks. The British people. are fond of compromise, and in these days of coalition government many compromises are being rightly made, but if you want to find a compromise between the two parties on this question, the wrong way is to try and secure in each industrial unit a compromise by itself. Some such attempt as I have already tried to show seems to have been made in this Railways Agreement. I believe it will fail, because it contains the disadvantages of both systems and the advantages of neither. It knocks

out the profit motive, which is the mainspring of private enterprise, and fails to put any other motive power in its place. The right type of compromise, if compromise there is to be, would be to select certain undertakings, essentially monopolistic in character, already running on well established lines, essential to the life and work of the community, and bring them under the full control and ownership of the nation, and leave others to be developed by the initiative of private enterprise and private control. That is my conception of what a compromise ought to be, and my conception of the transport problem is what I have said. It ought to be regarded as one whole, and the railway part of it ought to be related to that larger conception. I fail to see in this White Paper any such broad conception as I have endeavoured to suggest ought to form the basis of the transport system.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Colonel Llewellin): I think we should all be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for initiating this discussion in the way he has, and at any rate I think we can welcome his assurance that he favours our Agreement more than he favoured its predecessor. I think my best course is to remind the House first about some terms of the old arrangement between the Government and the railways. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to them, but he took only one or two. The main things about that Agreement were that there was a minimum guaranteed to the railways of £39,444,000. After that the first £3,500,000 of any addition to the pool was to go to the railways, bringing the sum up to the £43,000,000 which we have in the White Paper to-day. After that there was to be a fifty-fifty sharing arrangement until the standard revenues of the railway companies were reached. It is just as well to see what those standard revenues are, when we are having some criticism of the £43,000,000. Under the procedure laid down by this House in the Railways Act the standard revenues of the four main line railway companies were fixed at £51,359,095. To that must be added the standard revenue of the London Passenger Transport Board under the London Passenger Transport Board Act, 1933, which amounted to £5,493,881. So the standard revenues added together—the comparable figure to the £43,000,000—


give you £56,852,976. Those were the revenues laid down under the procedure passed by the House, to which the Railway Rates Tribunal was to give effect when altering rates and charges.
Under the fifty-fifty arrangement revenue in excess of £43,000,000 and up to the total standard revenue of £56,852,976 was shared equally by the railways and the Government, and beyond that the Government were to take the whole surplus if it ever amounted to that sum. The maintenance charges which the House discussed last time are a good part of the old Agreement which we have maintained in the present one. Then there was the provision, to which my right hon. Friend referred, that rates, fares and charges were to be adjusted to meet variations in the working costs. It should be noted that it was only variations in working costs and not variations in all general expenses. Then there was the provision that the cost of restoring war damage up to a maximum of £10,000,000 in any year was to be charged to revenue expenditure, and that again was to be taken into account in fixing fares and freight charges.
The final provision to which I will refer is that if a major cause arose, either party to the Agreement might propose a revision of it. In consequence of two Government decisions which have been approved by the House the railway companies agreed that a major cause had arisen and that a revision of the former arrangement was necessary. These decisions were that the Government would introduce legislation to place all public utility undertakings on the same basis as regards war damage, that is to say, the railways will bear 50 per cent. of the cost of restoring war damage; and the other decision, as announced by my right hon. Friend in his Budget speech, was to minimise the impact of the increasing cost of transport upon price levels. I should like to emphasise that the agreement to revise the former arrangement was a voluntary matter and not imposed upon the railways. It was followed by negotiations between my Noble Friend and the railway companies, and the White Paper which we are now discussing is the result of these negotiations. Perhaps the House will let me apologise for the fact that the full Agreement is not yet before the House. I do not think it will help the

House very much when it sees the Agreement. I have seen it in draft. It is still with the lawyers. It is rather a dull and uninteresting legal document. When I announced to the House that it would be issued at an early date I had hoped that the early date would be before to-day. At any rate, I think the House will take my assurance that all the main terms are set out in the White Paper and that seeing the draft Agreement when it is laid before the House will not really carry us any further.
The new Agreement operates as from 1st January this year. It represents, as the House appreciates, a carefully considered public policy, and it has the endorsement of the War Cabinet as a whole. The five main differences are as follow: The fixed annual payment of £43,000,000 is, as it were, a rent for the undertakings. When it is taken out of the pool the Government will take any surplus or make good any deficiency. The cost of restoring war damage is not to be charged any more to working expenses, that is, to the revenue before assessing the pool. In other words, the railways cannot charge their 50 per cent. share to the pool but must find it in future from their own resources That brings them into line with the arrangements that will be made with all other public utility undertakings. The arrangement as to adjustment of fares, rates and charges is to cease, which will be a great benefit to the travelling public and the trader. The Government will adhere to their stabilisation policy unless they are forced off it by such an increase in, for instance, wages as would make its abandonment inevitable. The fifth point of difference in the Agreement is that control is to be continued for at least a year after the war ends; indeed, until such time as the statutory machinery for the fixation of the level of charges can again become effective.
What the House and the country will want to know is how this will work out, whether we have made a good bargain for the taxpayers, and whether, in doing so, we have acted fairly by the vast number of people up and down the country, those worthy citizens to whom my right hon. Friend has referred, who own railway shares. During the first complete year of control, namely, 1940, the pool net revenue for the main line railways and the London Passenger Transport Board came to £42,300,000. This year it will


probably come to considerably more. I do not want to give what at best would be a rough guess at a figure. We shall issue a return for the full calendar year as soon as the accounts can be analysed after its conclusion, but even now, unless conditions alter very much, it will be substantially larger than last year. In that case the major proportion of the increase will go to the taxpayer as the figure last year was not far short of the £43,000,000. Apart from that, the cost of operation of the railways had increased and under the old arrangements the railways were entitled to ask and, indeed, did ask, for leave to raise fares and freights. This lag, as it is called, dated back to 1940 and would have eventually increased the net revenues of this and future years. Had the Government not taken the decision to stabilise as far as possible fares and freight charges, a further substantial sum would have been carried to the pool.
Again, when we are considering this sum of £43,000,000 it is relevant to recall that in the last war the rent paid for the railways—that is, a smaller undertaking as it did not include the Tubes, London buses and trams—was an average of £46,800,000 a year. Apart from that, the Government under this arrangement had to pay out £60,000,000 at the end of the war for the arrears of maintenance and other charges. We cannot say, therefore, that the railways, in asking for the terms that they did and in getting the terms that they have, are in any way acting as war profiteers. Indeed, it is because they did not want to be in this position that they accepted this Agreement. They made it clear that they had set aside ordinary commercial considerations because in their view the national interest was paramount at this time. That is why we have been able to get a good Agreement from our point of view. It is only fair to the railway boards that I should make it clear that they do not accept the £43,000,000 as in any way representing the existing or potential earning capacity of their undertakings. I think that from the taxpayers' point of view we can congratulate ourselves that we have made a good bargain.
What, however, of the railway shareholders? As my right hon. Friend said, they have got a stabilised revenue for the period of the war, and, indeed, for one

year after, subject only to this qualification, that the railway companies will ultimately have to pay 50 per cent. of the war damage, whereas previously they had to pay 100 per cent. of any war damage over £10,000,000 in a year, the £10,000,000 coming out of the pool and being taken out of increases in freights and charges. Nothing of that will now be taken out of the pool revenue. What a certain number of railway investors, and perhaps what the House, would like to know is what, in terms of cash, is the extent of war damage up to date. Well, I am not going to give that figure. The Germans would be extremely interested to know, and so I cannot satisfy the inquisitive among the shareholders on that point. How this new scheme of war damage will affect dividends will depend, of course, on how the railway boards decide to find the money for their contribution, but it will be evident that unless the damage in any year exceeds £20,000,000 the railways will have to find a larger sum under the new Agreement than they would have had to find under the old. However, I think that in this Agreement we have done fairly by the shareholders. I do not see any reason for putting the rent we are giving the railways lower than the figure of the average years just because they have it guaranteed for a while. After all, railway shareholders suffered considerably from the effects of road competition in the years before the war, and even in the last war were getting under the Agreement considerably more than this £43,000,000.

Mr. G. Strauss: The Minister has said there is no reason why the railway undertakings should receive less than their average yearly takings because the Government have guaranteed their revenues. To what average years is he referring?

Colonel Llewellin: The average years to which my right hon. Friend referred. He said that if their revenue is guaranteed that revenue ought, if anything, to be under rather than over their average pre-war yearly earnings. I was just replying to him and did not take any years at all myself. All I was saying was that in the last war the figure was £46,800,000, and that the standard revenue is £56,000,000, so that really there is nothing very handsome for the shareholders in the railways getting £43,000,000.

Mr. A. G. Walkden: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the standard revenue was never earned? It was fixed at a time when the railways were employing 750,000 men and to-day they are employing only 550,000, and therefore that figure for the standard revenue is out of the question.

Colonel Llewellin: I agree that the figure has never been earned, but if you have never quite achieved an end which was aimed at for years and the situation of the day gives you some chance of achieving it, then it must once again begin to bulk more largely in the minds of the shareholders. Whether it has been reached or not it was the sum which was laid down by the Railway Rates Tribunal after taking into account all the factors specified in the Railways Act, 1921. As my right hon. Friend has said, the Agreement is solely a financial one, and if the House will give me permission to speak again later I shall be happy to deal with any points on the financial side upon which my hon. Friends may seek information.
I now leave the financial aspect and come to deal with one or two points concerning general control. The only way in which this Agreement can be related to the control of the railways is that it has this indirect advantage, that when we are discussing the withdrawal of perhaps the the more remunerative railway services in order to get essential troop or goods traffic through we no longer have to consider the effect upon the revenues of the railway companies. That is the only way in which this changed Agreement alters the position from the operational side. I am not going, as my right hon. Friend did very warily, to discuss nationalisation today. It would be out of order if I did so, because that would need legislation and this is a discussion on the Adjournment.

Mr. G. Strauss: I wish to raise a point of Order. A very important point has been raised here. It is suggested that nationalisation would require legislation, and therefore it would be out of Order to discuss it upon the Adjournment. In point of fact, under present war-time legislation it would not need legislation to nationalise the railways, because the Government could do it by Regulation under the powers which they already possess.

In view of that would the subject be out of Order?

Mr. Speaker: To discuss the nationalisation of railways on a Motion for the Adjournment would be out of Order, because it would need legislation.

Colonel Llewellin: It would, in fact, require legislation, because we should have to continue with nationalisation after the war, when the powers of the Defence of the Realm Regulations will, I hope, have ceased. At any rate, if I could have mentioned nationalisation I should merely have said that we ought to accentuate our war-time agreements rather than our disagreements. My right hon. Friend touched upon the point of how far we are, first, coordinating the railways and how, in the wider field, we are co-ordinating traffic as a whole. The co-ordination of traffic as a whole is the function of my Noble Friend the Minister and to a lesser degree of myself. We are the co-ordinating authority for coastwise shipping, for the railways, for the roads and for the canals. That work is done by our Ministry and, I frankly believe, it is being done with efficiency and success. There is one point upon which I should like to correct my right hon. Friend. He suggested that the coastwise shipping trade was now almost entirely out of action, but I am glad to say that that statement does not at all represent the true position of affairs. We are trying to carry by means of coastal ships, and are succeeding, a great amount of coal, steel and all sorts of commodities round the coast of this country at the present time. We are very much indebted to the officers and men of those ships who sail round our shores, carrying these goods into seas where their vessels may be mined, torpedoed or bombed, and at the end of their voyage coming into a port where they are still not safe from the bomber.
In regard to the railways, we have all the control that we want. It is a day-today control, through the Railway Executive Committee. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say about the old ex-Ministers of Transport, they were not fools enough to think that, when war began, you should immediately take out the general managers and the people who have experience in a great industry of this sort and put in Civil Servants or people


like that to run the show. Of course, they did not do it and neither have we. What was done was to form the Railway Executive Committee with the general managers of the main line railways and of the London Passenger Transport Board. That body was presided over by Sir Ralph Wedgwood, brother of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). Sir Ralph Wedgwood has now retired, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him for the very hard work he put in when he was chairman of the Railway Executive Committee. Sir Alan Anderson, the present chairman of the Railway Executive Committee, is also Controller of the railways. He holds a meeting, which is now going on in the Ministry once a week. The rest of the time he is in constant touch and co-ordinating the effort of the railways at the headquarters of the Railway Executive Committee. We have complete unification by all those general managers working together.
You would have the same thing, whether you called the organisation the national railways or by their present names of Great Western, L.M.S., etc. The railways have been constructed to work on separate systems from various points to other points, and you cannot jumble them up and put them all together. You would still have to have general managers for each of the main line railway systems. We are satisfied that we have all the control we want, and we are very much indebted to the general managers for the way in which they work on that Railway Executive Committee and carry out the wishes of the Minister. I do not want to extend the scope of the Debate by discussing at length the road problem. The announcement was made only to show that we are taking under direct Government control a pool of vehicles to carry essential traffic, and no more. Complete control of the running of every road vehicle is obtained very efficiently by means of our Regional Transport Commissioners, who operate the petrol ration, without which, of course, the traffic must cease entirely.

Mr. A. G. Walkden: Will the Minister tell us whether the great road undertakings have been acquired by the railways? Are they under the control of the Minister, or are they worked in conjunc-

tion with the railways? I notice that they are excluded in the White Paper.

Colonel Llewellin: Oh, yes, they were excluded during the last war from the financial part of the scheme. They are a road undertaking and not a railway.

Mr. Walkden: Is the Minister controlling them?

Colonel Llewellin: Only in the same way as we control any other road undertaking, that is, mainly by the allocation of the petrol ration. The persons running the road industries are just the same as those who ran them before the war, and they are ready to pull their full weight in the war effort, as we all are. They are ready to do what we ask. In addition, there is the small reserve pool which can be used as we require.
With regard to canals, may I remind the House that I happen to have been appointed by my Noble Friend to be chairman of the Central Canal Committee? We have done a great deal about the use of canals, but, unfortunately, when you consider how far you can develop this or that canal, you find that the canal may have a draught of one foot six inches or that the locks have not been repaired, or something of that kind. We have not sufficient surplus labour to undertake the work of putting those canals into action, and so we cannot make use of the whole of these waterways. On the main canals bulk goods are carried where possible. The canal industry is carrying more coal and other merchandise to-day than it has done for a large number of years.

Mr. Benson: Can the Minister give any indication of the proportion of canals so used?

Colonel Llewellin: I did not bring the figures for canals with me for a railway Debate, but I will get them for the hon. Member by the end of the Debate.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Has the Minister considered using prisoner labour for the purpose of putting the canals in order as it is used in order to drain land?

Colonel Llewellin: I gave that fact only as one example of our difficulties with the canals. We have not as many barges as we should want, nor have we as many bargees. We are encouraging the train-


ing of bargees and also of people who can mend barges. Here and there we may be able to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I am afraid that we cannot use all those canals. We are making the very most of the canals which are in suitable repair and condition.
Now to return to the White Paper which we are discussing, I would pay tribute to the patriotic attitude of the boards of directors, in making this Agreement, which is better for the taxpayer than the old one. I would pay also a tribute to the work of the general managers and to all those who work on the railways right down to the latest joined woman recruit.
With the additional strain which cannot be avoided in war-time and with the delays in journeys due to the need for giving priority to essential war traffic and perhaps occasionally due to enemy action—although that, I am glad to say, has not been so effective or persistent as our attacks on the present scale against the enemy's lines of communication in Germany—there must be many who feel that they have a grievance against the railways. What have the railways had to face? They have had to face the blackout, bombing and the bad weather of early spring; 80,000 railwaymen are serving with the Forces—and incidentally there are now 38,000 women doing work on the railways which was formerly done by men—and in addition they have been faced with this fact: In peace-time factories normally work for only eight hours a day, and even then the railways have had to work, in the marshalling yards and other places, 24 hours a day. But now the factories are working, not eight hours a day, but in some cases 24, or certainly 16 or 20, and the railways have to take the extra output made by the factories in that greater number of hours of work.
How have they done it? Last year they carried 17,000,000 tons more coal to inland destinations than ever in their history. Long-distance travel for Service personnel increased considerably. Workmen's travel increased considerably, sometimes over routes which were already very full. In the first six months of this year 11,218 special military passenger trains were run, and in the same period 11,739 special freight trains. The vouchers issued to the relatives of evacuees from London alone average

6,500 a week, and all this additional traffic has had to be arranged and carried. I hope the House will appreciate the work that is being done to help in the war. Let us pay our tribute both to the managements and to the operating staffs, to the engine drivers, firemen and guards, who, as they nightly go on the trains, peer through the black-out and try to see the shaded signals and detect whether there has been any bomb damage on the line. To the shunters too, who in necessarily ill-lit marshalling yards carry on their important work whether the alert has been sounded or not, and, last but by no means least, to the civil engineers and the various maintenance men who work under them.
When the tale of bomb damage can be told the country will know in full for the first time what wonderful work these men have done in keeping open our lines of communication. They have by their efforts greatly minimised the injury that hostile bombing has caused, and I am certain that whether hon. Members agree or disagree with my previous remarks, they would all like to join in a tribute to the men who are working on the railways. In regard to the Agreement, I would only say, in conclusion, that we have, in my view, given the railways a square deal and given the taxpayers a fair deal. I commend the Agreement to the House.

Mr. A. G. Walkden: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for his very clear exposition of the White Paper, and particularly for his generous appreciation of the arduous and exceptional labours of the railway workers and managements down to the humblest new beginner in the service, I wish to say that the whole position as explained by him to-day leaves the matter, in my humble opinion, in a most unsatisfactory state, which will cause further concern in the minds of the hundreds of thousands of workers who are interested in the great public service of railway transport and its sister service of road transport. I have an overwhelming feeling that we are in for a long war and not a short one; one can see no hope of an early settlement, and as one who went through the internal difficulties of the country during the war of 1914–1918, I feel that this war is far worse, will last far longer, and will be a greater tax upon our country.
Of all the things a country needs when at war, an efficient railway and transport service is the first necessity That is why, in the year 1871, after the Franco-Prussian war, the Government of that day took powers to take over the railways in the event of war, which shows the appreciation which existed of that fact as far back as 70 years ago. In the last war, within an hour of the declaration of war or of the expiration of the ultimatum to Germany, all our railways were under State control, but this time the Government seem to have been niggling about making this agreement and that agreement, and even now the way in which these things are being done is most distressing. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that weeks and months have been spent in trying to arrive at the Agreement dealt with in this White Paper. I agree at once that it is less bad than the other one; I cannot say it is good or better, but it is less bad. Even now it is not finally settled; the lawyers are haggling about it. And that is not surprising, because they represent their clients, who are naturally concerned about their dividends and about the future of their property.
I well remember the fatal thing which was done after the last war in releasing the railways from the seven years' public State control and giving them back to the companies on 15th August, 1921. From that day the railways went down and down, and have been in a most unhappy position. Their grouping scheme has proved in practice a failure; their pooling scheme, for which they came to this House for powers, has been tried out, but they cannot agree about it; they are still footling and fussing about, and there are still strife and friction, with an army of professional people engaged. Here, when the Minister should be concentrating on the transport problems of this war, there is still concern with what the lawyers are finally going to do about the arrangements. It is amazing to me, when people are dying by hundreds and thousands in the struggle for humanity. This will not do. The whole tone and temper of the exposition are wrong; the whole approach, the whole attitude of mind, is wrong. This great service needs unifying at once, and completely. The canal question has been mentioned. What better illustration could you have than that of leaving it to private enterprise? As far back as 1896

a Commission reported that they could be made into a useful service for £15,000,000. The railway owners undertook nothing of that sort. Now another war has come upon us, and the canals are still not giving the service they might, because we have not an all-in central authority to control these things. There has been a wireless announcement about some control of road transport which shows how wrong, inadequate, and unsatisfactory the transport position is. I want to plead that transport should be unified completely without further delay.
Some people with very little experience and rather timid minds say that this cannot be done because no man living can control and direct all these aspects of transport single-handed. Well, there are great expectations about the gentlemen appointed to the Railway Executive Committee, and from what I know about managers there is quite a good collection of first-rate men and brains, any one of whom could take such a position and fill it effectively. He would have an easier job than any manager of any one of the four railways groups has now. He would have an easier job than the head of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway. It would be a less complicated job, the whole thing would be unified, all power would be in his hands along with his advisory board, to make decisions without let or hindrance from other interests.
A first-class illustration before- us is the London Passenger Transport Board. When that enterprise started, 92 separate undertakings were fighting one another for the passenger traffic: of London— several electric railways, tramways, buses, borough council buses, county council buses and the regional buses and trams all round London, all in conflict, all in chaos. The head of the London Passenger Transport Board, I know, certainly found it much easier to run the Board after these 92 undertakings had been merged into one than when he was head of the London Traffic Combine, with all these scores of people in competition. I am sure there is quite a number of first-rate men who could do just as well with a Transport Board for the whole country. This is only a little island about 600 miles long, which does not make the project such a stupendous thing.
The job of transport has become tremendously important, and for war purposes it is of primary importance. Every-


one depends on transport every day of his life, but when war comes it is 10 times more important. That is probably why Bismarck, when he got the indemnity money out of France, used it at once to buy the German railways. The German railway system, as has been stated, is a magnificent, unified concern, which has about the same capital and just about the same yield of profit results—to the Exchequer instead of to shareholders—as ours. It was undoubtedly of tremendous value to them in 1914–18, much handier to utilise, direct and manage than our railways Again, they have the same advantage in this present struggle. This war will last for a long time, and I implore the Government to think again about the whole transport problem. They must not imagine that it will be left where the White Paper leaves it. The effectiveness of the service is impaired by a multiplicity of minds, each based on a different foundation, and the whole service is blighted by the fact that the primary motive of those directing is to earn dividends, not give a public service; they cannot divest themselves of that.
When I joined the railway service, a friend of mine entered a competition which the late Lord Rosebery, who had got himself made a railway director, instigated, by offering a gold medal for the best essay on a railway subject written by any clerk in the service under 35 years of age. My friend won the gold medal. The theme he had chosen was the function of the railways in relation to trade and commerce. He wrote that the object of the railways was to serve trade and commerce, that that was their function. He wrote about it nicely, and the academic gentlemen who adjudicated awarded him the gold medal. He went to receive it from the chairman of the company, who said to him, "You have overlooked the first function of railways." When my friend inquired what that was, the chairman said, "The first function is to pay a dividend." That was straight from the chairman's mouth to the innocent clerk. That is true all the time. All my life I have been up against that, as a railway clerk and as a trade union representative. That must be eliminated from this great service. No one would suggest that the Post Office should be given to private contractors to earn a dividend. Of course not. This transport service—railways,

canals, coastal traffic and road services— ought to be all under the control of the community through the Government of the day. If control was made public instead of private, there ought to be compensation, of course.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I have been listening to the hon. Member for some time, and I am afraid his ingenuity is not sufficient to save him from having transgressed Mr. Speaker's Ruling.

Mr. Walkden: The representative of the Minister himself, in referring to public ownership, said they would have to eliminate managers and replace them with civil servants.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not hear that, but I am afraid that misconduct on the part of one Member of the House does not justify it on the part of another.

Mr. Walkden: I will leave it at that. I do say that further powers should be sought, if the Government feel that they do not possess them, to go a great deal further than this White Paper. Let me give this further warning. I may be dead and gone before this war is over, but something will happen before the war is over. Out of war there is always the risk of revolution. It is much better to forestall it, and if the Government handle things of this kind in a bold, comprehensive and fearless way, as Disraeli handled the Suez Canal question, they will prevent the uprising of public feeling that will want to overturn the present order of society. I know that is a big thing to suggest, but we have seen it in other countries, and we do not want it here. By more statesmanlike action on the part of the Government we could have a better transport service for the nation and for the purposes of the war, and a much better atmosphere throughout the country when we have won the war and have set about rebuilding our own country.

Mr. Mander: I should like to join in the tribute that the Minister paid to all who are playing a part in the running of the railways at present. They are working under most difficult conditions, and they deserve that tribute. In these few remarks, I do not want to deal with the details of the Agreement. As a result of Government control of the railways during the war, we have been able to see certain advantages in their


administration coming to the State as a whole. For example, the question of fares, workmen's tickets and that sort of thing, has been dealt with in response to a demand from this House. The question of first-class carriages has been raised and pressed here, and the Minister is making an experiment in the London area to see the effect of abolishing first-class carriages altogether. It may be that, as a result, such a development will take place on a wider scale throughout the country. I cannot see that there is much case for maintaining the distinction anywhere. I know that a concession was made in regard to allowing Service men to enter first-class carriages which were empty, but I feel that, even there, an attempt has been made to get around the concession by keeping certain compartments locked. It is true that if he gets out of a train at a station and walks up and down to see where there are empty carriages a soldier may obtain a seat, but while the train is in motion he cannot go from one end of the train to the other to search for a seat. That is not quite carrying out the spirit of the concession. The condition of London termini has been greatly improved as the result of pressure in this House.
I should not be so rash as to put forward any suggestion which would involve legislation, but I am going to make a specific suggestion which could be carried out by administrative action of the Government any day. I am going to ask that they should appoint a committee or commission of inquiry to go into the questions of the administration of the railways and their future. This White Paper refers to the fact that the Agreement is to extend for one year after the termination of the war, but I think that no one can seriously contemplate a back-to-1939 policy for the railways. I should have thought that there was pretty general agreement that certain changes will have to take place as a result of what we are learning during the war. I suggest that that matter should be investigated by an impartial body set up by the Government to consider whether or not, and in what manner, changes might be brought about. I was looking the other day at an example of agreement among all parties in the form of a book, published some years ago, called "The Next Five Years." It con-

tains the signatures of members of all parties, and it agreed that the railways were ripe for coming under some sort of Government control or ownership. You need not necessarily do it on the lines of the Post Office—although we have been, in the last year or so, going very much on those lines, and having direct questions put to Ministers about the railways. It may be that something in the nature of a public utility company, like the B.B.C. or the London Passenger Transport Board, might suggest itself to the committee of inquiry.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Member suggest that that could be done without legislation?

Mr. Mander: No, Sir, I am not suggesting that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Then the hon. Member must not discuss it.

Mr. Mander: I shall be glad to have your Ruling, Sir. I am not suggesting legislation; I am suggesting a committee, to be appointed by the Government, to consider whether or not steps should be taken to make these changes.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: When it is ruled that certain things may not be debated, the hon. Member cannot get free of that Ruling by merely refraining from using the word "nationalisation." He must not discuss matters which would require legislation to carry them out.

Mr. Mander: I quite appreciate that there is a rather narrow line between the appointment of a committee of inquiry and any subsequent proposals which might grow from their decisions. I must not, and will not, develop that any further, beyond saying, if I may finish the sentence, that, so far as Members of my party are concerned, we are perfectly satisfied that the case for some State control of the railways has been proved over and over again.

Colonel Llewellin: Then why ask for a Commission?

Mr. Mander: For the very good reason that my party are not at present in control of the machinery of the Slate, and that it is necessary, therefore, to convert other people to that point of view. I want to refer to thr need for close co-


operation and integration of all the different means of travel—roads, railways and canals. It is true that so far as air travel is concerned very little can be done at present, but in so far as anything can be done, even on the military side, that ought to be brought in too. Arrangements ought to be made so that the railways and the roads may not be competitors but may be regarded as the main public carrier services, which should play into each other's hands in a common unity. I hope that the Ministry in dealing with questions affecting railway and road transport will bear in mind the importance of that. I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will also bear in mind the suggestion I have made about a committee of inquiry.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I have very great hopes that I shall be able to keep within the Rules, because I shall confine myself to particular points in the White Paper, and not deal with transport in general. The Minister used the expression that he thought he had made a good bargain for the taxpayer. I hope that he included the ratepayer. I am speaking for the County Councils' Association, who feel considerable uncertainty as to the effects that this White Paper will have upon them as rating authorities, the effects that it will have upon the valuation on which they receive contributions from the railway companies. We have grave fears that this White Paper will alter the basis of the valuation laid down in the Acts of I930 and 1933. The White Paper gives an intimation that the Government are going to provide £43,000,000, and also that they are going to control rates, fares and charges which the railway companies will have the opportunity of making. The receipts are to be pooled, but under the 1930 Act they had to ascertain, the receipts of the separate undertakings and arrive at averages. I want the Minister to make clear how they are to determine the receipts for each undertaking. If they are to be pooled, it will be very difficult.
I want to know how that is to be done. Is the £43,000,000 from the Government to be put in as receipts, and how will that be allocated to the undertakings for rating purposes? The Act says "normal receipts". I believe that there have been cases where it has been decided that the receipts which accrue where Government interference has taken place cannot be

taken as normal receipts. I would like to know whether that difficulty will be overcome in ascertaining the normal receipts when those receipts have been controlled by the Government in the various ways. These are all points which have to do very largely with the ascertainment of the rating values which is to be made for the railway companies and upon which basis the local authorities will have to receive their rates. This is a matter of very great importance to the county councils and to other rating authorities, and I shall be glad if the Minister will deal with it, so that we may put the views of the Government before them.
We have to remember that in the White Paper the Government are to make good any deficiencies which may acrue to the railway companies, but, in regard to the basis of valuation for the purposes of providing rates, it must be remembered that it is the local authorities that have to spend money for the benefit of the public in their area. I hope that they will make good any loss which may accrue to them in their rates through the effect of the White Paper. We do not believe that the White Paper should have such an effect upon the basis of valuation that it would ultimately mean that the ratepayer would lose in the receipts he should have for the performance of the duties placed upon him by the Government in the various localities. I do not wish to discuss the matter further, but these are points which are causing a considerable amount of concern to the local authorities, and I shall be glad if the Minister will be able to give a reply and an assurance upon them.

Mr. Ridley: The House listened with interest and, I think gratitude to the careful and attentive survey of the White Paper which the Parliamentary Secretary made, and he is to be congratulated upon his first statement on finance at that Box. I say that without prejudicing what I may subsequently say about what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. The present Prime Minister, when sitting below the Gangway, usually proceeded to praise an hon. Member and then to attack, saying, "Having fortified myself, I will proceed with my speech." I wish to make a few comments on the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. I thought he used a rather unfortunate analogy. I do not want to misinterpret


him, but I understood him to say that rates and fares under the new Agreement or under the Government's general policy were stabilised at their present figure, unless there is a substantial or major increase in general costs and, he said, for instance, in wages. I thing that he would have been happier if he had chosen another instance rather than the wages instance. There are many other cost increases of which I can think which could have been used to illustrate the general argument, and I would not like it to be assumed by several hundred thousand railwaymen that an increase in wages would be the particular objective of Government policy in this respect.

Colonel Llewellin: I used the instance of wages only because the labour bill is the major running expense of the railway companies. If there were a substantial rise, we probably could not help paying out taxpayers' money in subsidies every year to railwaymen or increasing fares and freights to cover the cost.

Mr. Ridley: I do not want to pursue the point, but there is some understandable tenderness on this matter, and I am very anxious to avoid undue reference to it. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has been seriously misinformed about the facts of the standard revenue, and unless he has the situation a little clearer in his mind, his objective views may lack the accuracy which is desired.
I and many other hon. Members are grateful to him for the tribute he paid to the work of the railway workers under existing war-time conditions. I am connected, as are other of my hon. Friends, with a trade union organisation in which railway shunters are not taken for membership. We are entering a period of the year with a 14-hour black-out and shunters in large shunting yards, where every moving wagon is a dangerous projectile to life and limb, are faced with imperfect lighting conditions in which the shunter may not raise his own hand-lamp more than a glimmer above the horizontal, and, sometimes in the winter, as in the case of the winter before last, with conditions in which, as one London newspaper said, everything that could freeze, froze twice. When these circumstances are aggregated together, they present a condition of work that requires a display of heroism if the railway industry is to

continue in any sense at all to serve the national purpose. It is a remarkable thing that the railways are able to carry on in these circumstances in the splendid fashion that they do, and I am sure that many people will be indebted to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for what he said.
The White Paper, I suppose, represents not only the terms of the financial Agreement between the Government and the controllers of the undertakings but also the extent and limits of the railway policy of the Government. If I am not correct in the latter part of my assumption, I can only say that the Government have been very reticent in indicating their general policy. If I am correct—as I fear I am— I can only say, as some of my hon. Friends say in other language, that it is a "poor thing." It may not be the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's opinion, but it is a poor thing notwithstanding. It is unimaginative, and it is confessing complete inability to understand either the necessities of the transport situation or the way in which that situation should be dealt with. Let me indicate what I think are the comparative advantages of the new arrangement over the old. I say "comparative advantages." It is only a question of comparing bad with worse and not bad with good. The first advantages are these: Although the guarantee has been lifted by £3,000,000, the maximum has been dropped by £13,000,000. The old guarantee—the £40,000 000 guarantee— represented in terms of average distribution a distribution of 3.3 per cent, on all railway capital. The ceiling figure represented is 4.7. The new figure of £43,000,000, which is at once a guarantee and a ceiling, represents an average distribution, as I understand it, of 3.6 per cent. That means that whereas the guarantee has been increased by 3 per cent., the maximum figure had been lowered by 1.1 per cent. The standard revenue has been abandoned, and I am grateful, because the standard revenue has been for years the bugbear of the railway unions.
Here I wish that the Parliamentary Secretary had not left the House for a moment or two, because I would have liked to have told him that he is wrong in his assumption about the standard revenue. The standard revenue was the figure fixed by the Railway Rates Tribunal as a figure which the companies


could retain if they got it, but it was never a thing which the Tribunal said the companies ought to have if they could get it. The companies have always proceeded to argue as though, in fact, the latter were the case. They have tried by every sort of economy—including staff economy, wages, and salaries—to get their standard revenue. They have never got their standard revenue. But I am glad for another reason altogether to see that the standard revenue has gone. It was a very bad figure, because it was based mainly on the pre-1914 profit level, which was in itself a high profit figure because of the almost intolerable poverty conditions of employment in those years.
I regard this as a very important point. A week ago I visited a railway station in South Lincolnshire, where in those years I was employed as a railway clerk. I was employed at a time when companies were prosperous in the matter of distribution and when the total profit figure exceeded the aggregate wage and salary figure. I was a very experienced railway clerk, earning 24s. per week. I made out pay sheets for railway porters earning 15s. a week and for railway signalmen, in a 12-hour box for 72 hours a week, earning 19s. 6d. per week. It was bad enough to endure that poverty in those years, but it was much more painful to bear the reflection of that poverty in 1938–39. It was on a basis of that kind—intolerable poverty—that the standard revenue figure was very largely calculated. So if for no other reason I am glad that this White Paper, if it does not abolish the standard revenue altogether, does at least lay it low. But the weakness of the White Paper as a financial arrangement is that it guarantees a profit of £43,000,000 to the existing owners while leaving the entire direction of the whole industry in the hands of the existing owners. This, to many people, startling figure of £43,000,000 per annum has no doubt been insisted upon by the railway companies, because they must cover as far as they can their very heavy capital obligations.
Anybody who reads for the first time the history of railway development from the early part of the nineteenth century will be astounded at the story of its unsavouriness. The capital of the four companies exceeds £1,000,000,000, but this figure

has never been reached on the Stock Exchange since the last war. There ought to be reorganisation in order to make it more closely conform to the modern conditions. I shall be told by the orthodox railway economists that the justification for the £1,000,000,000 figure is that the industry could not be rebuilt at that price. Well, I do not think anybody would want to do that to-day. I can think of railway stations which would be rebuilt by no one outside Bedlam. The Greeks may have a word for it but not true economists. Many of our railway stations are a disgrace to the public service, and I am quite confident that nobody will want to rebuild many of them in their present shape. I wish to urge that the capital structure of the four railway groups, which is intimately related to the figure of £43,000,000, needs drastic reorganisation in order that the figure shall conform with modern valuation on the Stock Exchange or, at any rate, with modern valuation. It would have been cheaper to have bought the undertakings than to hire them at £43,000,000 per annum. If the money had been raised at 3 per cent., £30,000,000 would have been required, and something like £8,000,000 to £10,000,000 would have been left for sinking fund purposes.
That brings me to my final point about railway finance. It is a point of public importance. Some companies cannot rebuild their stations or widen their permanent ways even if they wanted to do so. They would need to raise capital to do it, and without a State guarantee they could not get their capital. Indeed, during the last seven or eight years they have become mendicants of the State. They have had capital raised for them on the basis of State security through the Railway Finance Corporation. We ought not to continue to live in this sort of halfway house between private enterprise on the one hand and private enterprise which lives only on the basis of State guarantees and is, therefore, in a position of a mendicant. I do not see how there can be reorganisation of railway capital except on the basis of public ownership and control. There is no reason for the continuance of four separate capital structures, four boards of directors, and four general managers. They ought to be one. For the moment I will content myself with urging that there should be unification of the industry for the purposes of properly


pursuing the war effort. The present Minister of Aircraft Production said when he was Minister of Transport that the four group companies would combine to fight the enemy but would insist on fighting each other at the same time. That is the essence of the conflict. The continued existence of four separate organisations is inconsistent with the proper pursuit of the national war effort.
There is a suspicion of manœuvring and of jealousy as to what is to happen in 1946 or some later year. That is inherent in a system based on the private profit motive, and I suggest that the private profit motive must be abolished if there is to be an effective harnessing of the railway industry to the pursuit of the national effort. In other words, there must be public ownership and control. In terms of legislation in this House, that is no new idea.

Mr. Speaker: It has been ruled several times that that subject is out of Order in this Debate, and I must ask the hon. Member to keep to that Ruling.

Mr. Ridley: I apologise if I have disobeyed your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and all I will say, if I am in Order in doing so, is that Mr. Gladstone was responsible for placing on the Statute Book in 1844 an Act which laid down the terms of purchase of the British railways on the basis of which they could now be nationalised. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary might usefully and with some interest find out what Mr. Gladstone said, not in some hypothetical year, but in 1844.
As to the second point, the Minister is presumably being advised about railway matters by the Railway Executive Committee, a body of railway officers who, in their own sphere, deserve all proper respect. But their sphere is the railways, and not transport in the wider sense. I suggest that, retaining this administrative control in this form, there should also be a body for the purpose of directing the industry in the widest sense and advising the Minister, consisting of officers, users and employees. Not only do I urge that the four groups should in some fashion be made into one group, but I also urge that, for the purpose of effectively pursuing the national effort, there should be a unification of road and rail trans-

port. The continued idea of regarding these as two separate industries and two different kinds of undertakings is a totally erroneous and fundamentally harmful idea. There can be an effective transport system only when every important unit of it is made to play its proper part within the ambit of a single unified organisation. The Transport Advisory Council, whose work has largely been forgotten in the excitement of war, made a report to the Minister of Transport on 4th April, 1939. In referring to the report, the Minister of Transport said that due regard should be had to the ultimate objective of the co-ordination of all forms of transport. That is what I ask. The Council, in reporting to the Minister at that time, said that an all-in system of transport under an appropriate and co-ordinated system of control was essential to the community as a whole. I ask for no more than that the Government should implement the report of the Council which was appointed two years ago. There is now neither co-ordination nor correlation. Long-distance traffic is recklessly hauled on the roads when it could go much better by rail, and short-distance traffic which could be conveyed better by road is still being very expensively conveyed by rail. There is no transport plan. In the ultimate all transport on road and rail must be brought under a unified ownership within the authority of a single control.
If the Minister says that the position on the roads now is so complicated and involved that any transfer is impossible in the circumstances of war, he merely confirms my view that the position is, in fact, intolerably chaotic; but for the moment I accept his dictum and urge upon him the following considerations. In my view, all traffic, whether destined eventually to be carried by rail or road, should notionally pass through a traffic control centre, and the traffic controller should direct the way in which all traffic should flow. I would simplify that process by adding to it something like a "navicert" system by which some firms and undertakings of substance would be given general authority as to the transport of their traffic between certain defined points. But the essential thing is that nobody should be allowed, as they now are, to do exactly what they like. Everybody should be required to do what is best in the national interest. It is


often urged in some parts of the House that industry has not been as efficiently organised as it might be in pursuit of the national effort. I do not know enough about the matter either to support or deny that as a general statement, but I assert that in the industry in which I have some experience not nearly enough has been done, and that the White Paper is really no contribution to a policy that should have as its object the harnessing of the transport system to the national effort in the most effective fashion. It has been urged for some time that to press the question of nationalisation now is to rake the fires of acute political controversy. That would be alarming, but it is far more alarming that the Minister of Transport should think that in transport matters the war can be conducted on the basis of the status quo.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: The hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) has made some statements about railway finance which are so misleading that I want to comment on them at once. He spoke of the £43,000,000, which, to use the term employed by the Minister, is the rental to be paid to the four main line railways and the London Passenger Transport undertaking, as yielding 3.6 per cent, on the whole railway capital, and he quite clearly suggested that all the holders of railway stock would get something out of that. The hon. Member knows very well that the holders of many million pounds' worth of railway stock will get nothing.

Mr. Ridley: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is looking a gift horse in the mouth. I was trying to show that the minimum provided only 3.6 per cent.

Sir G. Courthope: I am explaining to the hon. Member, what he knows to be true, that under this Agreement the holders of many millions of railway stock will get nothing, and can get nothing. The stockholders are not all in one class, as there are debenture holders, guaranteed holders, and so on, and a great many of the preferred ordinary stockholders and deferred ordinary stockholders will not get anything under the Agreement. I do not attack the Agreement, because under some pressure the railway companies have accepted it, but I do not think it is right that misleading statements of that kind should go unchallenged. I cannot give an exact figure, but in the case of not less

than £80,000,000 of railway stock, the holders will receive no dividend during the currency of this Agreement. Not unnaturally, a great many railway stockholders feel that it is very unfair to them, representing as they do very substantial assets and having subscribed either in the original issues or in purchase through the Stock Exchange these large blocks of stock, that their stock should be sterilised so that for the duration of the war they will get nothing.
Then I want to challenge the extraordinary statements that he has made about railway capitalisation. If there was a valuation by modern methods of the railway enterprises, I think he would be astonished at the results. He has referred to obsolete railway stations. Of course, there are obsolete railway stations, and no one wants to put a big value on them, but he has overlooked the fact that the practice of replacement of permanent way and rolling stock has been done in such a way that it has not increased the capitalisation in spite of the greatly increased cost of replacement. Some people may feel again that the junior stockholders have a grievance, because there has been by this method a bolstering-up of the security behind the premier stocks at the expense of the common stockholders. The replacement has taken place on the basis of calculated life. After so many years the whole of the permanent way has to be replaced. It costs double now what it did, but it has not increased the capital of the companies nor the peak figure at which the permanent way stands in the railway books. If that was valued by modern methods of valuation, I am confident that the total figure would be considerably greater, instead of considerably less, than the, roughly, £1,000,000,000 at which it stands to-day.

Mr. Ridley: I said that what a thing is worth is what a man who wants to buy is willing to give to a man who wants to sell, and that, or the Stock Exchange figure, is a great deal less than £1,000,000,000.

Sir G. Courthope: I have not made a calculation on the Stock Exchange figures, but I should be very much surprised if the hon. Member is right.
The Agreement itself has not been very substantially attacked, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and the


two hon. Members opposite have all spoken as if the figure under the Agreement was a great concession to railway stockholders. The last speaker almost suggested that it was a question of subsidising the railways. I am not going to give the figures, although I know them, as my right hon. and gallant Friend who spoke for the Government said he could not give the figures of net revenue, but everyone knows perfectly well that, short of something catastrophic during the remaining two months of the year, the ceiling figure under the old Agreement, the standard revenue figure, will not be reached. Not only has this House insisted on setting up a standard revenue figure for the four main line railways, but also as recently as 1933 in the case of the London Passenger Transport Board, so that the House is definitely going back on its view twice expressed in legislation. It drops all idea of the standard revenue. It is true that we never earned the standard revenue.
But I want to say something else. Last year this House solemnly approved, after consideration, and not without opposition, the White Paper which was issued in February of last year which set out the heads of the old Agreement. Early this year the Government informed the railway companies that they wanted to abandon that Agreement. The railway directors agreed to abandon it and to negotiate a new Agreement on the understanding that it should be not less favourable to stockholders than the old one. Not only was that understanding met, but the chairmen of the main line railway companies were authorised to make that statement to their stockholders at their annual meetings at the beginning of this year, when it was announced that they had agreed to negotiate the new Agreement. The heads of the new Agreement are in the White Paper which we are considering to-day, and no one will suggest that, in the present year at all events, they are anything like so favourable as the figures would be if the old Agreement was allowed to stand. Those who had to speak for the stockholders under some pressure agreed to these terms, in spite of the fact that it is preventing large blocks of stock from getting any dividends and in spite of the fact that it is much less favourable than the Agreement it replaced, because everyone felt that it was not a time when any

public service should seek to increase its earnings and lay itself open to the charge of being war profiteers. But it is right that the House should be reminded of its actions in the past and should recognise that those who speak for the railway stockholders have gone a very long way in the direction of the public interest in agreeing to this document.
I should like to add a word to what has been said in all parts of the House in praise of those of all ranks who are serving the country through the railway companies. In some of the worst days of enemy action their behaviour was magnificent. When it is possible for the public to be told the story of some of the bombing, and the rapidity with which the services were restored, they will think it was almost miraculous. No praise can be too great for everyone concerned from the general managers right down to the humblest railway workers, for what they have done. I should like to thank the House for the patience with which they have listened to the few remarks which I felt bound to make, in view of the statements that have already been made by others in this Debate.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: At the outset I should like to join issue with those who have spoken on the other side on the question of the relevance of the standard revenue to the discussion today. I find it difficult to think that the railway shareholders arc giving up anything in abandoning their right to try and choose the standard revenue. They are giving up only a right or a claim to do something which this House in legislation and the Government by their administration have denied to every other industry. All they are doing is to give up the right to take advantage of the war situation to place themselves in a better position than they would otherwise have been. The standard revenue, in any event, was, as we have already heard, a figure based upon the heavy earnings prior to the last war, fixed at a time between the—for the railway shareholders—prosperous years of the last war and the prospect and the hope of the post-war boom that followed. It was based again, as we have heard, upon a grotesque capital structure and estimated —and this has not been emphasised so far—without any regard to the potentialities of road competition.
This discussion ought to proceed upon the basis that the standard revenue is completely irrelevant to it, and we should consider the £43,000,000 on its merits and without regard to any fanciful "might have beens." There is one other confusion which ought to have been avoided in discussing these terms. That is the confusion between the two sets of railways. One set are the shareholders' railways, and the other set are the railway men's railways. In the Debate that took place following the previous Agreement an hon. Member used this language:
What I want to ask is why should not railway companies be paid extra remuneration if they have to render extra services during the war? It is a new doctrine to me that you should say to any particular form of industry, 'For three years we know that trading was bad that you were not able to earn a sufficient remuneration. We arc now going to call upon you to fulfil extra services, to put every energy you possess into this work for the nation, but on no account shall you be paid an extra penny for those services.' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1940; col. 66S, Vol. 357.]
This Agreement concerns only what has to be paid to stockholders, and nobody is asking them in any sense of the term to fulfil extra services or to put any additional energy that they may possess into work for the nation. It will need no stronger fingers at the scissors for cutting off the coupons, whatever energy may be asked and services demanded of the railways during the war—not from the stockholders. When the railway companies advertise, as they properly do, the way in which they carry on during the war and give us pictures of the lines behind the line, they are referring not to the shareholders' railways but to the railway-men's railways—those railwayman who have been quite properly praised from all parts of the House to-day. All honour to them for the work they have done, but nothing that we say in praise even of the managers has any relevance to the consideration of this Agreement, which is with the shareholders' railway companies.
This Agreement was negotiated by the railway chairmen and not by the managers of the railway companies. I should like to examine one or two items in it. First, the figure of £43,000,000. In 1938 the railway companies made only £33,500,000. That was the pre-war earnings. Therefore, they will be nearly £10,000,000 better off as the result of this Agreement. When they negotiated the previous Agreement they managed, by what means I

know not, to persuade the Government not only to ignore the 1938 figure as a proper basis, but to accept an average which even excluded the 1938 figure altogether. The average accepted was the average net revenue of 1935–1936–1937. That selected average, hand-picked by the railway companies, gave them only £40,000,000. In this Agreement we are to give them £3,000,000 more than their own selected average years. Suggestions have come more than once that the Agreement really does not give the shareholders a great deal. I have had sent to me a magazine called "The Railway Stockholder," which I have never seen before. It purports to be the issue for October, 1941. I want to take my figures from this magazine because I imagine from its title that any figures appearing in it will not be biased against the view of the railway stockholders.
Let us apply the test of stock values and of dividend possibilities, or, if I may so describe them, the bread and jam of the stockholder. I find set out on one page in this magazine a comparison of prices of British railway stock on the third Friday in September, 1940, and the third Friday in September, 1941. That is a pretty fair date to take, because the third Friday in September this year was three weeks after the Agreement had been published, and it had given ample time for the profit takers and others to fade out of the picture and for the shares to steady themselves at what the Stock Exchange regard as a proper level. I find that if I had had a sample of each one of these stocks to sell in September, 1940, I should have got £661 for the packet. If I had kept them till the third Friday in September, 1941, and had put the same packet of samples on the counter I should have got £890 10s., an increase of 25 per cent.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Has the hon. Member made a similar test of changes in the prices of stocks in any other section of the Stock Exchange between the same two dates?

Mr. Hughes: I am doing my best to keep within the rules of Order in this Debate. Take the other test of dividend possibilities. There are listed here the dividends of what are described as the marginal stocks of the main line railway companies, and the 1940 dividends upon them averaged 2.2 per cent. In another column there is worked out the surplus


available for distribution upon these marginal shares out of the amount now paid to the main line railways, and the surplus available, if it is distributed, works out at an average of 2.8 per cent., again another 25 per cent, addition as compared with 1940. How, therefore, can those who speak for stockholders come to this House and suggest that they are getting anything but a really generous donation from the Government for the use of the railways during the war?

Captain Cobb: Has the hon. Member compared the present day prices of railway stocks with the prices of the same stocks a year or two before the war began?

Mr. Hughes: No, Sir, that seems to me to be irrelevant. What we are considering is the effect of this Agreement upon the shares. We have had bleats from those who speak for the shareholders, and I am demonstrating, and I think I have demonstrated conclusively, that they have done very well indeed. They have done 25 per cent, better than last year, which is quite enough to enable me to suggest that the language used by the Parliamentary Secretary was not quite appropriate.

General Sir George Jeffreys: Has the hon. Member taken the trouble to find out how many of the ordinary stocks, in particular, have paid no dividends at all for many years past?

Mr. Hughes: We have heard in this Debate that there are many millions. Is it suggested that because there is a war on those who hold shares which could not produce anything in peace-time have now the right to demand to have dividends upon them out of the community?

Sir G. Jeffreys: It does not show that they are doing very well, which is what the hon. Member has been saying.

Mr. G. Griffiths: It seems to me that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) is hurting somebody on the hon. and gallant Member's side.

Mr. Hughes: Consider another phrase used by the Parliamentary Secretary. He described this £43,000,000 as a rental. It is a queer use of the word. Take the position of the railway managers. They

have the day-to-day responsibility of running the railways, though it is true that they are, as a railway executive, consulted by the Minister. Now they are, in effect, paid by the State, and yet they are appointed by the shareholders and can be dismissed by the shareholders. In that position they cannot help thinking of their position in the future. They are responsible to the shareholders as much as they are responsible for the efficient running of the machine, which is the one thing they ought to be concerned about, especially at the present time. It is as though I rented a furnished house and the housekeeper and the gardener were paid by me but were appointed by the landlord, that he could dismiss them and that I could not change the drawing-room furniture around or plant a row of cabbages without consulting the gardener and the housekeeper whom the landlord had appointed. If the word "rental" is a proper term to apply then I say this is a tenancy on usurious and ignominious terms.
I have one or two questions to put to the Parliamentary Secretary about the Agreement, because there are one or two matters which I confess that I do not understand, though, perhaps, they may be elucidated when we see the Agreement itself. In paragraph 7 it states:
Maintenance charges including renewals) are standardised on the basis of an average pre-war charge adjusted for variations in assets in services and in prices levels.
It is a matter of some moment to the State to know what that means. In the previous Agreement there was a provision for standardising maintenance charges, and I wish to know whether they have been standardised. There have been 18 months in which to do it. If they have been standardised what is the figure and why have we not been told it now? There follows in paragraph 7 a complicated provision. Many hon. Members have read it and tried to understand it. I have read it many times and, as I see it, it means this: Assume that a railway company was in the habit before the war of replacing 10 railway engines a year, and that as the cost of building an engine has doubled they are able to replace only five now. As I see it, enough money to replace those railway engines which are not to be bought or built now at the existing prices has to be put aside and invested and even though it represents a price for those railway engines which


may not be the price of them at the time when they are replaced. The paragraph concludes by stating that the balance of the funds for maintenance and renewal which have not been used during the period of control will be passed through the pool account for the final accounting period of control. We ought to be told what that means. I hope it means that the Government will get the credit, whenever the railways are decontrolled, for the fact that replacements may be cheaper when the money comes to be spent than they were at a time when the money was put into this fund.
Paragraph 10 provides for the determination of the levels of rates, fares and charges. I believe that the effect of what the Parliamentary Secretary said was that it was intended to stabilise these as much as possible, but even within the policy of stabilisation it may be necessary to make alterations in some of the rates and fares without affecting the general level. In that case I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what procedure it is proposed to adopt. Is it to be clone in the secrecy of his office, or by the Railway Executive, or are we going to have the advantage of a public inquiry either before the Railway Rates Tribunal or before a consultative committee in order that those whose interests may be affected should have their voice heard? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will follow that course. I hope that I shall not transgress the Rules laid down for this Debate when I say that whatever form it may take some reorganisation is called for.
We have heard a great deal of what railwaymen have done on the trains and in the shunting yards. They have been performing national service, and not only national service but Defence service. There is no reason why these men upon whom the life and economy of the country depend should be employed by private enterprise any more than soldiers or sailors. This should be a national service, nationally organised. I will not say anything about who should own it, but it should be a national service, nationally organised and nationally co-ordinated and controlled.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: May I ask the hon. Member whether he suggests that railwaymen should be paid at the same rate as men in the Defence Forces?

Mr. Hughes: I do not see why because men in the Defence Forces are not being paid as much as they ought to be paid that that is any reason for bringing railwaymen's wages down. When the matter has been left to the railwaymen they have expressed their preference for the method of organisation under which they would like to be employed. For these reasons I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary not to treat this Agreement as marking the final stage

Major Maxwell Fyfe: Before coming to the many points on which I disagree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken, I should like to ask the House to consider whether we can agree on the points which we think important and decisive in testing this Agreement. I think the first one has been generally agreed, namely, Has the State made a good bargain in making the Agreement at all? The second test I should suggest is whether the needs of the travelling public and consignors of goods have received due regard; the third whether the essential need of rail transport and transport in general has been regarded; and the fourth, Has due weight been given to the effects of local rating? Within those four questions we can make our judgment of this Agreement. With regard to the first, I would suggest to my hon. Friend who has just spoken that there are more accurate and more fair methods of trying to decide whether the amount of £43,000,000 is justified or not than taking market values a fortnight after heavy bombing had started in this country, comparing them with values at a time when heavy bombing has ceased for some six months, and ignoring the movement in other stocks without which it is impossible to isolate the effect of the Agreement on railway stocks.

Mr. Hughes: I would like to point out to the hon. and gallant Gentle man that I did not choose those two periods. I got them from the "Railway Stockholder." There are two sets of figures. I did not take two out of six. There are two sets of figures on page 45 and page 51. I used them. The "Railway Stockholder" took them; I did not.

Major Fyfe: If my hon. Friend is so confined in his argumentative approach as to be limited to figures on one page of one issue of one magazine, I think we may try to proceed to get a better test. The first I would suggest is a comparison with hap-


penings in the last war. My hon. Friend said a great deal about standard revenue, but he will remember that the figure in the last war was based on net earnings for 1913, and on that basis payments were made during the last war. Because there was not a similar provision with regard to standarisation of maintenance and the provision of a fund to meet it at the end of the last war, the railway companies received, after proper adjudication on the matter, an additional £60,000,000. Therefore the position is that in this war they are not only receiving a smaller sum when their capital and potential earning power have greatly improved and increased, but a step has been taken—personally, I regard it as a sensible step—to standardise maintenance charges instead of piling up against yourselves the possibilities of a large claim after the war. I suggest that the Agreement comes out of the test unscathed. I would ask my hon. Friend, at some time when the many calls on his time allow him, to read the Debates in Committee when the Railways Act of 1921 was going through this House. Although it is 20 years ago, my recollection is very clear—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that it was not on standard revenue that the real criticism was made, because standard revenue as the aim and goal of the railway companies' activities was taken from the earnings of the constituent companies in 1913, and had no regard whatsoever to, and was in no way connected with, the capital structure of the constituent companies, some of which I agree may have contained a certain amount of stock which was very low at that time.

Mr. Ridley: But standard revenue was fixed and was not related to a recommended capital structure.

Major Fyfe: The basis of the standard revenue was the 1913 earnings of the constituent companies, plus a due allowance, about which there has never been any argument, of fresh capital, and the basis of the standard revenue was laid down in the Act, although the actual calculations were made afterwards by machinery which was provided either in the Act or in the Appendix. The point I am making, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) will appreciate the force of it, is that the

basis of standard revenue was the net earnings of the constituent companies. On that point I shall pledge to my hon. Friend whatever accuracy of recollection I have.
However, he proceeds from there and says that this standard has never been reached. Everyone knows, especially the hon. Member and I who have appeared for and against the railway companies in cases which introduce this fact, that we immediately came into the period of road competition. This House, and various bodies set up by it, were considering one scheme after another for co-operation and co-ordination of the different forms of transport. At that time the figures were quite accurately put. The railway companies were required during the whole of that difficult period to make provision, and to equip themselves and their undertakings, for such a situation as the war that has come. I do not think that my hon. Friend went so far as to say that, but I can see no basis whatsoever for suggesting that, if there were no Agreement of this kind, the railway companies could not now earn the £51,000,000 which is the main companies' standard revenue and the £5,500,000 which is the standard revenue of the London Passenger Transport Board. We who have to take as detached a view as we can of these matters bear in mind that road transport is restricted by a strategic matter, the shortage of petrol and the restriction of petrol, and we recognise that the railway companies, just as everyone else, should not be allowed free play to earn in this time. In fact, it has been cut down.
That is the position of history. I remind the House that we are discussing the Agreement before us and, as everyone has admitted, by that Agreement, the railway companies are foregoing their chance to share in the higher ranges of the pool. They are also foregoing the loss that they sustained during the time-lag which must inevitably occur in the raising of charges under the old Agreement, to meet the various factors which bring that loss about. I would ask the House to consider the first point either from the point of view of the history of these undertakings or of the last war, or by balancing the benefits which have been obtained, for I suggest that on that ground the State has made a good bargain at this time. From the point of view of the travelling


public—in which I include the consignors of goods—there are, of course, two matters which stand out. In the first place, war damage is no longer taken into the pool and made directly correctable by charges and rates. It ceases to be an immediate burden upon those who pay the fares and freights. Apart from that, they have also got the benefit of the general policy stated by my Hon. and gallant Friend, quoting from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, that an attempt is to be made to prevent an increase in the price of goods and services because of high transport costs.
There are three points which I should like my right hon. and gallant Friend to consider, and the first is the question of payment for national goods and personnel. It is extremely important, from whatever angle we may consider the future of transport, that we should know, at some time convenient to the national interest, what the carriage of goods and personnel for the State has meant. It is important from the point of view of the avoidance of extravagance, and it is important also from the psychological point of view, for if the system of carrying actual goods and personnel free is adopted, that will have to be remembered in connection with any such suggestion as was made earlier in the Debate that the railways are being subsidised.
The second point which I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will consider is that we shall have regard in the future to the movement of price levels and other charges in the planning of national transport. The other point was with regard to the suggestion of waste. I have been waiting for some specific charge, but I have not heard any so far, and I should like to put it to my right hon. Friend who initiated this discussion, and to those who have followed, that after every amalgamation, for example, that of 1921, there is inevitably a long period during which the main constituents run as independent bodies. Whatever my right hon. Friend's, view, I cannot see how to avoid such a period during which the independent existence of the constituent structures would have to be maintained.
The third test which I have applied to this Agreement is the position of transport in general, and in that connection I

wish to be brief, because it is easy to transgress the real purpose of this Debate. I would ask my right hon. Friend, and others who have obviously given so much consideration to this matter, to consider whether a time like this, when you have the petrol factor which I have mentioned, various factors affecting coastwise shipping, and a road transport system based essentially on the "C" licence, is really the time when unification should be introduced, because at the same time it is impossible to exclude special war factors and impossible to make inquiries into the whole of those war factors. But apart from that, what this House expects is that the coordinating guidance will be given in this matter by the Minister of War Transport. With regard to that, I think we are in general agreement, and that is our genera! expectation.
I want to deal for only one moment with the local rating position, because that is a matter which has given great concern, not only to those bodies mentioned by my hon. Friend in front of me, but to the Association of Municipal Corporations and, if I may be particular, to my own local authority, the Liverpool City Council. What we want to know is this —and if my right hon. and gallant Friend could give me his attention on this point, I think it would ease the doubts of a number of Members of the House on this point. The first question, to take the £43,000,000 itself, is whether that money is to be considered revenue within the Railway Assessment Act. That is the broad point, and the difficulty on that is the words Lord Atkin used in the piping days of peace in giving a judgment in regard to this matter. He said:
Government funds may in the future be paid to the railways either in the circumstances of war, which Heaven forefend, or in other circumstances, as by way of subsidy or otherwise. I cannot think it was ever intended that sums received in such circumstances were ever intended to come into the computation of rateable value.
If that is the position with regard to the £43,000,000, then local authorities would indeed be in a serious position with regard to railway hereditaments within their area. The second point is, assuming that the net revenue of the railway companies does not amount to £43,000,000, and you have a portion of the £43,000,000 paid from State moneys, does that figure, if it ever comes into existence, come into the


revenue for rateable purposes, and conversely is the excess of net earnings over £43,000,000 excluded from the figure for rateable value? These are points which are gravely exercising local authorities at the present time. I am sure that many of us in the House would be most obliged if my right hon. and gallant Friend would reply to them. I do suggest that, taking those four criteria which I have—I think, with general consent—adopted, and considering the various points that arise under each, the Agreement does survive the test, and is one which the House should approve.

Mr. Silkin: I should like to associate myself with the point which the hon. and gallant Member made with regard to rating. This is a matter which is concerning many local authorities, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to make it quite clear. I do not think I need labour the point which was clearly made by the hon. and gallant Member. The dispute that exists between this side of the House and the other about the terms of the Railways Agreement arises, I think, on the point that both sides are looking at it from a different angle. I will readily admit that if this Agreement were negotiated freely, without any restrictions, if it were negotiated in an atmosphere in which every industrial undertaking was allowed to make as much profit as it could in war time, and in the light of the fact that there was already in existence an Agreement which gave the railway companies an opportunity of making greater profits, then the present Agreement would be a fair and reasonable one from the point of view of the public.
It is undoubtedly a great improvement on the former Agreement, which nobody has attempted seriously to justify, and I think we might have congratulated ourselves upon having made a not unreasonable deal. Hon. Members opposite are looking at it from that angle. But, even on the existing terms, the railway companies are put in a privileged position. I have heard nobody on the other side deal with this point. All other undertakings are subject to 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax, and are not allowed to make a greater profit than they made in the standard year. On that basis, the railway companies would have made not more than £31,500,000. Why have the

railways been allowed, instead of that figure, a figure of £43,000,000? I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will direct himself to that point when he replies. If other undertakings were allowed to make more profits during the war than they did in peace-time, this consideration would not apply—it would merely be a case of the railways having so much more profit, and one might not object. The only reason put forward is that they were entitled to make the additional profit because they were doing additional work. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) has completely demolished that point, and it is not necessary for me to comment further upon it. It is worth bearing in mind also that this £43,000,000 is State guaranteed. It is possible that if the railways had been allowed the opportunity of making profits as they pleased during wartime they might, with all the restrictions on travelling, have made even less profit than previously. That, however, is a pure gamble. They might have made more, but it is conceivable that they would have made less.
I would like to ask one question about capital improvement. There is no doubt that during the tenancy—if I may put it that way—by the Government of the railway concerns, considerable capital improvements will be made. The Minister, speaking in another place, said that with the changes brought about by the incidence of war production, a large amount of work had been carried out during the period of Government control where, by reason of these changes, exceptionally heavy traffic had to be handled. I have no doubt that in the next year or two considerable improvements will be made in the railway undertakings by the Government, and I would like to know at whose expense these will be made; whether the railway companies will be expected to make some contribution in so far as the improvements benefit the companies? I do not expect them to contribute to something which, while it may be of national advantage may not necessarily benefit the railway undertakings. But in so far as the improvements benefit the railway undertakings, I would like to know what contribution, if any, the railway companies will be expected to make.
On the question of management, my right hon. Friend who opened the Debate


made the point that it was extremely difficult to expect a number of managers of undertakings who were to a certain extent competing with one another to have an eye on the national advantage and not to have at least a portion of an eye on the post-war position of their own undertakings. It would be almost more than could be expected from any human being not to consider at all what would be the post-war condition of his particular undertaking. One would have hoped that in order to get the most efficient unification of the railway companies, we would have got a management which was not so directly related to the existing railway companies. There is nothing in this Agreement or in the previous Agreement which requires that the management should be so directly related in this way. I hope it will be possible to give farther consideration to the question of management so as to secure the maximum amount of unification of the railways and not allow the Agreement to be prejudiced by the fact that managers must have some concern over the post-war position of their undertakings.
I want to say a word or two about the question of road transport. I feel that the unification of the railways without unification of road transport will not be very effective. A previous speaker said that a large number of persons with "C'' licences were carrying out transport services. I do not think anyone would seriously suggest that they ought to be brought into a national organisation, bur certain holders of "A" and "B" licences should be unified and brought into the national transport organisation. There are some 40,000 of them. I admit that that is a measure of the complexity of the problem, but it is also a measure of the complete chaos of the road transport undertakings. In these days the number of road vehicles is decreasing, because very few new road vehicles are being made and a number are becoming old and incapable of use. There is a difficulty in getting spare parts, and there is a petrol shortage, and, for all these reasons, it is essential that we should make the most effective use of the vehicles that are running and not allow them to run at their own sweet pleasure inefficiently, each undertaking merely being concerned with its own profits and not with the national interest. It is a hopeless position at the present time.
I have mentioned the road transport of goods, but the same thing applies with road passenger transport. Everyone knows that one of the great problems in production is the lack of adequate transport facilities for the workers. Probably that is the biggest single factor in the loss of production. Even to-day under these conditions, when probably our whole existence depends upon securing maximum production, there is no power to require any particular transport undertaking to run its vehicles in the national interest. There is no power to require an undertaking to run a service from one place to another.

Colonel Llewellin: We can certainly direct them to do so.

Mr. Silkin: Can you really direct an undertaking to run a particular service?

Colonel Llewellin: Yes.

Mr. Silkin: Then perhaps when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman replies he will tell me of one instance in which that power has been exercised because all over the country we are told of transport difficulties. I am not aware of any case in which, if that power exists, it has been used. On the other hand, regional transport commissioners are constantly saying that they have no power to force a particular undertaking to run a service from one place to another. We are told that they have some indirect method of exercising pressure, by the rationing of petrol and so on, but I have yet to learn that, if they have this power, they are exercising it. I hope the Minister will exercise control over road transport as well as over railways and will unify road with rail transport. In many instances it happens that there is an alternative method of transporting workers by rails but fares by rail are substantially in excess of fares by road. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look into that question and also that he will do with road transport generally, both goods and passenger vehicles, what he has done with railways, bring it into unified control, unify it with railway transport and see that if it is more efficient to carry goods by road, goods will be carried by road without any question of private profit entering into the matter. The only question that should arise is that of national interest. But the Minister cannot do this until he has attained complete


control of road transport. While I feel that the Agreement is unduly generous to the railway companies I, personally, am prepared to wink at it if the Minister will take over all goods transport of the country, other than "C" licences, and harness it to the national effort.

Colonel Llewellin: I should like, first, to thank the House for the reception which has, in general, been given to this Railways Agreement. I know that, in principle, some people would have liked it otherwise but I think, on the whole, I can claim that I have had a pretty good House to-day. I can only speak again with the leave of the House, and I will try, in my concluding remarks, to be brief. The hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. G. Walkden) said he wanted something that we have not got, an all-in central authority. With great respect to him, he is wrong, for we have an all-in central transport authority; that is the very thing which the Ministry of War Transport is. To co-ordinate and control transport is the function we have to perform, and are doing our best to perform. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) wanted a commission of inquiry into the future of the railways, although he said frankly that he had made up his mind what ought to be done with regard to the railways. It seems to me that when large numbers of people have made up their minds one way or the other, a commission would waste its time in drafting a report which might not change anybody's opinion and which would at any rate result in people concerned with seeing that the railway companies operate to the best advantage of the nation being taken off their job in order to give evidence before the commission.
The hon. Member, who said that he was speaking for the Liberal party, also wanted to bring the air services into the picture. I suggest that he should take up that point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, who is leader of the party for which the hon. Member said he spoke. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) raised a point concerning rating, which was also referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Derby (Major Maxwell Fyfe) and the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). The first thing to remember about this Agreement

is that it cannot affect the rates until 1946, and I do not think we need trouble ourselves very greatly now about the effect of the Agreement in 1946. Having more than once appeared for rating valuation committees and county authorities on rating, I do not intend on the spur of the moment to give a legal opinion in the House. The matter is not really one for the Ministry of War Transport, but for the Ministry of Health and I will certainly see that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is drawn to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone.

Sir J. Lamb: I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will say something a bit more substantial than that. This will have an effect on the basis on which the valuations are made in future years.

Colonel Llewellin: If this Agreement goes through, it will be a transaction, not between the rating authorities and anybody, but between the Government and the railway companies. As to what will be its effect on rating assessments, I must decline to give an opinion to-day, because very likely any opinion that I might give would be upset the first time the matter came before the court, and thus only serve to mislead.

Mr. Douglas: May I point out to the Minister that the form in which the Agreement is framed will be decisive on rating? Several times in the course of his remarks he has referred to the payment of £43,000,000 as being a rent. Will it be so expressed in the Agreement?

Colonel Llewellin: I was using language which I thought it would be easy for the public to understand. The wording in the Agreement is not actually "rate" or "rent" but "a fixed annual payment."

Mr. Douglas: It will produce the adverse results foretold.

Colonel Llewellin: I pass now to the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes). One of the things he said was that railway managers are appointed by the shareholders. That, of course, is wrong. They are appointed by the boards of directors. We have made an arrangement with these companies that in the case of any new senior appointment—we are not going to


worry about the lower ones—we shall be consulted. He asked about stabilisation of fares. We shall, of course, alter fares here and there and adjust them, as indeed he wished them to be adjusted without going to any kind of consultative tribunal. If there was an idea that rates generally would have to go up we might agree to it as a Ministry, which we can do, or we might take the matter before the Railway Rates Tribunal. The next point I think I ought to deal with was made by the hon. and gallant Member for West Derby, who asked whether we were going to pay for Government goods and personnel. That matter is still under discussion between the Government Departments concerned. Whether cash passes or not, I think we are bound to keep a record of costs. My hon. and gallant Friend also asked whether we were going to keep a record of variations in costs of labour and material for each year of control. We shall certainly do that.

Sir J. Lamb: Will these be available to the rating authorities for use in ascertaining the valuations?

Colonel Llewellin: I think I had better have notice of that question. As this matter, which concerns my hon. Friend so much, will have no effect whatever until 1946, I think we have a little time to think over what will happen between then and now. If some hon. Members had their way there would only be a contribution in lieu of rates, rather than any payment of rates at all. The hon. Member who spoke last mentioned lack of travelling facilities for the workers. Wherever a shortage of such facilities is brought to our notice we do our best to remove it, sometimes by putting on special workmen's trains. Here the hon. Member for East Wolver-hampton was rather inaccurate in dating workmen's fares from the time when the Government took control, because there have been workmen's fares since the very start of the railways, even in the days of Mr. Gladstone. They were first stabilised in 1881. We can also put on extra buses, although I am sure the House realises that the number of buses and trains and everything at our disposal is short and we have a difficulty in meeting all requirements. But wherever any hon. Member sees a case where men in essential work are not getting proper travelling facilities, I hope he will bring it to my notice so that I can see what can be done to improve matters.

Mr. Silkin: The point I sought to make was that you are barred in regard to road transport; you can put on an extra train, but you cannot put on an extra bus.

Colonel Llewellin: We control it through the Regional Transport Commissioner. If you go along to one of the passenger transport bodies and say you want an extra bus put on on a certain route, they will in practically every case agree to do it for war workers. That is, of course, provided the need for the bus is recognised by the Regional Transport Commissioner. If there is any case of which the hon. Member knows where they refuse to do it and lets me know, we will soon see that it is done. The people who are running the bus services are just as anxious to give proper facilities to those engaged on war work as any Member of the House.

Mr. Silkin: These cases were dealt with fully in the 21st Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure.

Colonel Llewellin: I will look at it again to see whether any cases quoted there have not been made good. I was making the point that if there is any person who refuses to use his transport we can easily take steps, for there are plenty we are empowered to take, to see that extra services are put on.
The hon. Member made a point in regard to capital expenditure and also about the Excess Profits Tax. All large contracts for work or supplies on maintenance account during control are to be subject to the prior consent of the Minister. We are strengthening the transport accounts branch of the Ministry, which since the last war has had a nucleus of ex-railway accountants, and it will examine the control accounts jointly with railway accountants. Capital charges will not be allowed to come into the ordinary expenditure as a revenue charge. In regard to the Excess Profits Tax, the hon. Member overlooked the fact that Section 27 of the Finance Act, 1940, provides that a substituted standard may be allowed by the Commissioners if it can be shown that the profits for the standard period were depressed. This substituted period is to be such as the Commissioners or referees think just, not exceeding an amount sufficient to pay 6 per cent, on the ordinary share capital. The £43,000,000 will not pay anything like


6 per cent, on the ordinary share capital of the railway companies.
The hon. Member said that we were looking at the solution of this problem from two different points of view. I can assure him that the only point of view from which my Noble Friend and I and Members of the Government look at this matter is how to get the most effective service out of the railway companies in the national effort during the war. If you have people taken off their jobs— and it is going to be a difficult job this winter running through the maximum number of trains—to consider how their position and that of their companies will be affected now and after the war and in getting out accounts and statements to see how the arrangements can be made, it will simply mean throwing a spanner into a machine that is working extraordinarily well. For that reason we certainly should not during the course of the war take any such steps as the big ones suggested by some hon. Members. We believe that it would greatly hamper the solution of our transport problems to do so and that we had far better go on as we are, with the general managers working in with us and together unifying the control of the railways. They and those who work under them are performing a grand work for the country at this time. Let us therefore close with this Agreement and allow them to get on with that work.

NEWS DISSEMINATION (REUTERS, LIMITED).

Mr. Clement Davies: I am glad that this opportunity has been given to me to raise a matter which is, in my view, one of extreme public importance and also one of great urgency. As I understand it, an arrangement has been come to which, unless somebody intervenes, will be completed to-morrow. Reuters has become not only a national but an international corporation, and a name which is familiar to us all. It is a name upon which reliance has been placed by generations as that of a company Which collected and disseminated news, and news only, as fairly and as accurately as it could be ascertained. I want to deal with the facts only in a very general way, for the details, of course, are not as familiar to me as they will be to

Members of the House, and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunder-land (Mr. Storey). As I understand it, until a few days ago Reuters was owned by the Press Association, that is, the Press Association held all the shares in Reuters The Press Association, on the other hand, was owned in the main by independent newspaper proprietors who are outside London, although some of the London newspaper owners had a certain number of shares in it. Nobody was in control of the Press Association—no single person, nor even any small body of persons. But recently the Press Association was approached by a certain number of London owners of newspapers, and it was proposed to buy 50 per cent, of the shares in Reuters. That proposal has been acepted by the owners of the shares in the Press Association, and if this transaction is allowed to go through, it will mean that 50 per cent, of the shares of Reuters will be under the control of a few men who are now in control of some of the London newspapers, which are also, of course, the national newspapers. I suggest that that gives rise to a very dangerous position.
The collection and dissemination of news should come from a source which is pure and undefiled and, not only that, above suspicion. It is not only necessary that the very greatest care should be taken in getting the news and in disseminating it as obtained, but that the public should also have confidence that the collector and disseminator are issuing accurate news. That is why it is always so very important to distinguish between propaganda and news. Hitherto Reuters have only issued news—facts as they have ascertained them through their various agents all over the world. They have disseminated them through the newspapers, and then of course the newspapers can make what use they please of them and make such comments as they please about them. But if the power of collecting that news at its source, the power with regard to its source, the way in which it is then disseminated to the world, is in the hands of a few people, there is a very great danger, to say the least of it, that that news may be used for ulterior purposes.
I do not suggest that the new proprietors will misuse their power in any way at this present moment, but the mere fact that the possibility is there is one


which at any rate disturbs me and will probably disturb the public. They will lose the confidence which they have hitherto had in the accuracy and purity of the news. In addition to that, there is a particular danger in this case, namely, that there is an agreement between Reuters and the British Broadcasting Corporation whereby the British Broadcasting Corporation get a large part of their news from foreign countries and from the Empire through Reuters. Everyone relies upon the accuracy of the news as transmitted by the British Broadcasting Corporation. Hitherto, with regard to that Corporation, we have occupied a unique position in this country in having a corporation that is no part of the Government and yet is of such an independent nature that it is above suspicion. Everybody trusts implicitly the news that it transmits. They say, "That is news, that is accurate, that is not propaganda on behalf of anyone. "Hence the power and position of the British Broadcasting Corporation to-day. Should it perchance happen that the origin of the news before it reaches the British Broadcasting Corporation may be defiled, then even the confidence in the British Broadcasting
Corporation would be changed.
It is suggested that the Government cannot interfere in this, that this is a private transaction and that it is not for the Government to interfere in it. We are in the midst of the greatest war that this world has ever known. The Government are continually interfering with transactions. They have the right to interfere with transactions. This House and the Legislature generally have given them the most complete and absolute powers over property and over persons. It has been a matter of regret to many of us that they have not used those powers which were conferred upon them in 1940 much more fully. It does not seem to me to be right to suggest that the Government which can interfere in the most ordinary matters, such as food, such as ordinary sale transactions in everyday little things, cannot in a matter which is of vital national importance take note of it. I do not think it will be suggested by my right hon. Friend when he comes to reply that that is the true position.
May I suggest that he should call these parties together and say that this is a matter which vitally concerns His

Majesty's Government and the country as a whole, and that he must be satisfied that the whole conduct of Reuters is in the hands of people who will not only be in themselves perfect, but will command the respect and the trust of the whole of this country and indeed of the world? Far be it from me to suggest that the Government should take control of Reuters or any source of news. Again, they would be under suspicion. People would say, "We wonder whether this is news, or propaganda on behalf of the Government? We cannot distinguish between the one and the other. Something is being put across, and we do not know whether it is accurate."
Surely a body could be created today, of completely independent trustees, who would hold these shares, men who would command respect in the country generally, in foreign countries, and throughout the world. They would be in control, leaving, of course, the everyday matters to the managing directors, who would be subject to appointment and dismissal by those persons. Surely it is not beyond the ability of the Government, (1) to make that suggestion; (2) to see that it is adopted and that, in the meantime, until some such safeguard is found, these shares should not be transferred from the present ownership to the hands proposed. One can think of all kinds of things which might happen at a time like this. If the collection of news as is done now from all parts of the world, were in the hands of somebody unscrupulous, one can imagine an attack, say upon the Government, which was quite unjustifiable, but which might be worked up by spreading false news, bearing upon it the great name of Reuters Agency, that hitherto we have always respected. Reuters' own correspondent, wiring from some country or other that that country has been deeply stirred by action or lack of action on the part of the Government, is accepted; nobody is in a position to contradict. It is that kind of possibility that disturbs me and other Members of this House. I hope that the Government will take immediate and determined action in the matter.

Mr. Storey: As I am chairman of Reuters, I should like to say one word of personal explanation, and that is that I have no financial interest in this company and take no salary for my


work as chairman of it. My only interest in Reuters is in what Reuters can do in the national cause My opposition to these proposals has been because I believe that they are not in the national interest.
What are the facts? I will try to put them as briefly as I can. They are these: Some months ago, the Newspaper Proprietors Association, which is the trade association of the London newspapers, under threat of competition, persuaded the majority of the directors of the Press Association, which is the home news agency owned by the provincial newspapers, to agree to sell to them one half the issued share capital in Reuters. This proposed sale was approved last week by a general meeting of the Press Association, but the majority, on that occasion, was more than made up by the votes of the provincial editions of the London newspapers and of the provincial newspapers allied to London newspapers. It was intended that the deal should be completed to-morrow. I should like to say a word or two about Reuters' main functions. They are, first, to supply world news, home, Empire and foreign, to the newspapers and news agencies throughout the British Empire, and in foreign countries. The second great function is to supply Empire and foreign news and Parliamentary reports to the B.B.C. for their home and overseas broadcasts. Their third function is to supply Empire and foreign news to newspapers in Great Britain and Ireland. I submit that to perform these functions properly the ownership and direction of Reuters should be independent, widely experienced and so representative that no sectional interest can ever dominate it.
The present ownership and direction of Reuters has one merit: All Reuters' shares are held—or were held—by the Press Association, a co-operative enterprise, the shares of which are very widely held. If this sale is completed the position will be entirely altered. It is true that the proposed sale is coupled with a proposal for the creation of a Reuters Trust, but this Trust will have no real power. The trustees will not even hold the shares in Reuters, Limited, or the income arising from the shares. They will appoint the directors, but they can only appoint those persons who have been nominated to them by the shareholders. The Trust

can at any time be got rid of by the shareholders by the simple expedient of putting the company into voluntary liquidation, and there is no provision whatsoever for the representation of any other interests except newspapers.
London newspapers, which through the Newspaper Proprietors Association will hold one-half of the issued capital of Reuters, will also through their provincial editions and through the provincial newspapers which are allied to them continue to hold not only half the shares of Reuters, but will have a 25 per cent, interest in the Press Association's half of the shares. They will therefore be in a position of considerable advantage, and it is at least possible—I put it no higher than that—that Reuters will be run primarily to serve the special interests of the London newspapers.
The requirements of London newspapers are not necessarily the same as those of provincial newspapers, nor are they identical with the news service requirements of the B.B.C. or of Empire and foreign news agencies and newspapers. When I became chairman of Reuters, Reuters' services were principally run with an eye to the London papers, and the overseas service consequently suffered. Now that balance has been adjusted; the policy we have set out to carry through has been to re-establish London as the news centre of the world, for if it is the news centre of the world, all the news comes in from every quarter of the globe, and we shall be able to satisfy the needs of all our clients fully and equally, whether they are London or provincial newspapers, whether they are Dominion or Indian newspapers, or whether they are Empire or foreign newspapers. That we are succeeding in doing so is borne out by telegrams we have received from all quarters of the Globe. I have one here from Durban:
Service has definitely improved of late and leaves very little to be desired.
Here is one from South America:
Improved service is reflected in better space in newspapers.
From Santiago:
Service is 100 per cent, better in every aspect.
From Cairo:
There is general agreement that the Reuters' service has greatly improved in recent months.


From Singapore:
Thanks really excellent news service now compiled London and the extension of the Pacific service. We should be more than able to hold our own.
These are typical of the messages we have received from all over the world. I think they show that much has been done in recent months to re-establish London as a news centre, and to enable us to give an equally good service to all our clients. Apart from this, it is certainly not in the national interest that a section of the newspaper industry, particularly one composed of so few individuals, should be in a position to exert a dominating influence over a national institution performing so vital a service as Reuters performs, and enjoying such facilities as Reuters enjoys.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): Would the hon. Member deal with this point about individuals, which is very important?

Mr. Storey: What I had in mind was that the Newspaper Proprietors Association, which will not only hold half the shares of Reuters but have this other interest on the other side, consists, I think, of 15 members. Under the provisions of the trust deeds it is possible for these shares to fall into as few as four hands. That that should be even a possibility is not in the national interest now or at any time, I think. The London papers claim that their only interest is to strengthen and extend Reuters. I must say that it is a strange way of showing their interest in Reuters to threaten to compete with a national institution performing a great work of national importance at the present time. There is nothing to prevent the London newspapers from playing their part, even now, in the direction of Reuters. Through their provincial editions they are entitled to representatives on the board. But they are not content to play their part in a co-operative enterprise. They prefer to be in a position in which they can dominate the company. I have no doubt myself that the control of Reuters should be vested in a genuine trust, representative of national interests and of Reuters' various activities.
It is all the more essential that this should be done, and I am sure the House will agree, when it is realised that there is no British news agency which can be considered as an alternative source of supply. The wireless facilities with which

the Government has recently provided Reuters, and over which Reuters enjoy priority and operational control, give Reuters a virtual monopoly in the telegraphic broadcasts of world news services overseas. They do, however, offer an opportunity whereby the Government can ensure that the control and direction of Reuters is such as national interests demand. It would be easy to devise a Reuters Trust which would be representative of national interests and of Reuters' spheres of action, and would hold the shares and the income arising therefrom for the maintenance of Reuters as an independent British-owned news agency for the collection and distribution of world news through British channels. But the time is short. If the Government are going to do anything, they must act quickly. I submit that they have the means by which they can bring about the creation of such a Reuters Trust, and I beg them, in the national interests, to do so.

Sir Stanley Reed: It is the custom in this House for those who are directly concerned in any question which arises to indicate their beneficial interest, if they have one. May I make it clear at the outset that I have no beneficial interest whatsoever in Reuters, but that Reuters has a beneficial interest in me, because I have been a large contributor to its funds for the past 45 years? I want to endorse in every particular the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) in bringing this question before the House. He has discharged an eminent public service in calling our attention to this matter, because its ramifications go even beyond those which he has stated in such moderate terms.
I think the whole House will agree with him that what we want, and what the newspaper Press of the Empire wants —what the responsible newspaper Press of Britain and the Empire wants—is news. But news can be coloured and garbled in all sorts of mysterious ways. What we want is straight news, which conveys simply the essential facts, leaving the journals themselves, if they think fit, to interpret them and to draw their conclusions therefrom. News must be straight, it must be impartial, it must be accurate, and it must be free from any sort of bias or pressure or propaganda. Speaking


from experience covering very nearly half a century, I say, without fear of contradiction, that that news Reuter has given us. It has given not only to the newspaper Press of Great Britain, but, what is equally important, to the great newspaper Press of the Empire, a service of that kind; and it has given to the newspaper Press of Great Britain and of the Empire a service of rapidly-expanding importance and value and educative effect. I have seen that service expand in its overseas branch from a few hundred words a day to something like 120,000 words a month; and, thanks to its energy and enterprise, there is not an overseas newspaper to-day which has not within its reach, at very moderate cost, this great and comprehensive service, entirely free from bias and as near as any human service can be free from any sort of pressure and propaganda.
It may be asked whether those conditions will be maintained following the changes which are being rushed through, and which, if this House and the Government responsible to the desires of this House do not intervene, may be consummated to-morrow. Speaking on behalf of the great overseas Press, I say that I have the very gravest doubts indeed as to whether those conditions will be maintained in the circumstances now contemplated. It is not easy for any ordinary man to penetrate the jungle of modern finance. One wants, as Sam Weller said, "A pair of double million glass miscroscopes of hextry power." As I read the proposals which are now made, and which have been interpreted by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), and the facts that he has put before us—

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, extending Section one of the Act to the Urban District of Oakham, a copy of which was presented to this House on 15th October, be approved."— [Mr. Peake.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Adamson.]

NEWS DISSEMINATION (REUTERS, LIMITED).

Sir S. Reed: As I was saying, as far as my poor abilities allow me to penetrate this jungle and interpret the facts which have been put before us by the hon. Member for Sunderland, I think you can crystallise it in a very few words. This is a great and a sinister step in the further trustification of the Press 61 Britain and the Empire and of bringing within those trusts and into the very limited hands which control it not only most of our daily papers, but the news service which has hitherto been entirely independent. I would therefore ask the Government, and I ask the Members of this House to urge the Government, to see that this transaction does not go through without further and very careful inquiry. I take it that it has largely been sprung upon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information, whichever of them may be most directly concerned, and it would not be reasonable to ask them, at the present stage, to indicate how best there can be preserved in the national and Imperial interests the complete impartiality and objectivity of our main news service. But I ask this House to urge on the Government to see that this transaction shall not go through without a very careful investigation of all its implications. I go further and say— without a very careful inquiry into its sinister possibilities, so as to give them time to consider the immense interests concerned, not only the interests of Great Britain, but the interests of the whole Commonwealth, which is dependent upon this service for much of its daily news; and that after consultation they should come to us with proposals which may secure what I am sure 100 per cent, of the Members of this House and of this country desire, and it is, that not only now, in this great crisis, but at all times in the future, not only here, but in the Commonwealth, every citizen shall have the right to see served to him a fearless, straight, comprehensive and honest summary of the news- of the day, so that he


may on that form his own opinions as to the policies which should be pursued in our great Imperial interests.

Captain Sir Ian Fraser: I will detain the House for two sentences. I was just coming into the House at the time the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) made a proposal that there should be some Trust which would see that the desirable impartiality to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) referred was maintained in connection with this great news agency. I want to ask the Government to have this in mind in the constitution of any such Trust. It should be a free Trust, not controlled by any committee which holds shares and which renders its deliberations inoperative. If we can have a free Trust upon which all interests, national, provincial, broadcasting and Imperial, are represented, then I think decent, free meals will be well served.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): We have had a most interesting Debate, but to a certain extent we have had a one-sided Debate, because nobody has spoken for the bold bad barons of Fleet Street who are apparently anxious to add to their powers. They wish to have control of what is described as England's greatest news agency. The position of the Government in this matter is very simple. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are actually negotiating with the parties concerned. It is quite open to the Government to bring in a Bill to nationalise Reuters, but would that be helpful from the point of view of Reuters? Certainly not. If a news agency were regarded throughout the world as being the property of the British Government, its news value would be very small. Here is an opportunity, it is said, for the Government to start their own news agency. Well, believe me, from what I have seen in my limited experience of my present Ministry, I think the financial misfortunes of such a news agency would be beyond all description. We had better face up to the fact that whoever manage Reuters must be people who also have the financial responsibility for the concern.
I am the servant of the House, and I am quite willing to accept the suggestion that Reuters should be nationalised (Interruption).—An hon. Member says

that nobody suggested it. But what are we doing? We are discussing the expropriation of private property. The Government are a customer of Reuters and no more, and I imagine that the generality of the shareholders of Reuters will take the view that even were the Government to withdraw their account they might be willing to work it up into an even more effective news agency than it has been in the past. I want to put this on record. If my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), who is chairman of Reuters, thinks that in the past 10 or 12 years Reuters' position as a world news agency has been equal to that of, say, the Associated Press of America, he is greatly mistaken. Reuters, to my mind, have lost ground. We have got to face up to that; they have lost ground in a most remarkable way. I think my hon. Friend under his administration has been doing his best to improve it, but nevertheless we must face up to the fact that it is not a Canterbury Cathedral or an ancient British institution which is at stake. It is a commercial business, and a highly competitive commercial business.

Mr. Stokes: With an early English name.

Mr. Bracken: Well, we are proud of the old school tie and the old English name. We have to remember that if the Government nationalise Reuters—I quite agree that nobody has suggested it actually, but in practice that is what will happen if we follow the proposals made—we shall have a difficult job to manage the business. Supposing, for the sake of argument, we do not do that but start our own news agency. Here is the House of Commons with a large Conservative majority suggesting, so far as I understand it, that we should start our own news agency if Reuters do not come to heel. I think that is a very futile argument. We are approaching a problem by way of getting all parties concerned into some form of agreement, but the thing that worries me, and must worry the Chancellor of the Exchequer far more, is, Who is to finance this business? I beg the House to be a little patient, because we are actually in negotiation with all the parties concerned.
I hope to be able to tell the House very soon what are the results of the negotiations, but meanwhile. I do not want to


prejudice the negotiations by saying, as apparently some people seem to think, that the Press barons of Fleet Street might use Reuters against the national interests, and that these trustified Press organisations of London are highly dangerous and that we must look out for them. I would remind hon. Members that a very large proportion of the provincial Press is trustified. The joint stock principle has entered into most of the newspaper business of England, and the argument is only one between large and small joint stock companies.
A good deal of heat has been imported into the Debate. The suggestion seems to have been made that the Newspaper Proprietors Association are unpatriotic or villainous. They are neither. I was a member of the Association before I assumed my present office. I think the wise course to follow would be to see how the Chancellor and I fare when we deal with these great barons of Fleet Street. If we fail to get a satisfactory solution, I think the Debate should be continued, but I deprecate at the present time the importation of a lot of criticism of parties whom we have to meet tomorrow, without knowing what line these gentlemen, these noble gentlemen, are going to take. I think that, despite the many defects of the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a pretty good negotiator, but if we cannot reach a satisfactory solution on the question, the Debate will be continued. I have taken great notice of what has been said, and nothing has been said in the Debate which has been the slightest bit in favour of anything except the point of view expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunder-land (Mr. Storey), who is chairman of Reuters. I think that the House, having listened to their observations, now expects us to take note of them. I have taken a lot of notes of them, and I shall have an opportunity of reporting to the House. But before I conclude. I want to say that it is extremely unfair to the Newspaper Proprietors Association to regard them as a lot of greedy bandits who are anxious to doctor the news for the benefit of their readers. They are no such thing. And if they were, why did not the Press Association, who have sold these shares to these sup-

posed scoundrels of Fleet Street, take that into account before this great protest began? I suggest to the House that the best thing to do is to let the Chancellor and me get on with the negotiations, and if we fail in them, then this Debate will continue. We shall be very glad indeed to listen to some more observations on the misconduct of Fleet Street, and I hope that at some time or other somebody will get up and put the other point of view, which we have not heard to-day.

Mr. A. Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman report to the House the result of these negotiations before any scheme is legally consummated?

Mr. Bracken: I could not give an undertaking like that. I must say that these negotiations have really gone through to this extent, that the Newspaper Proprietors Association have bought the shares. They have not altered the articles, but they have bought the shares. The deal has gone through, but there is nothing in that because if, in the national interest, it is desirable to undo a deal, it can be undone, as we are dealing with patriotic parties on all sides. I do not think it is the exact date that matters, but the question of the public interest.

Mr. Bevan: Following up my first question, the right hon. Gentleman is to take part in negotiations, and as the deal has gone through, the negotiations must be about something else. He is going to try and bring about a modification of the existing position, or some modification of the articles of association, which would meet the desire expressed in all parts of the House to-day. Will he report to the House before final effect is given to any scheme which ultimately emerges?

Mr. Bracken: I cannot do that, because actually the contract has been signed and to a large extent the deal has gone through. But I shall present the negotiators on the other side with a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT and, when they have digested it, they may be more amenable to suggestions. Only a onesided account of this transaction has been given in the House.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I understood my right hon. Friend to say that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in some negotiations with the parties to this transaction.


He also said that the transaction has now gone through. What is it that he proposes to say to the negotiators? If it has gone through, is he going to be able to undo it, which is apparently what the House would like to see done? Will he bear in mind that, as far as I have understood the Debate, the House does not want control of Reuters to go into the hands of a few people any more than it wants it to go into the hands of the Government? What the House wants is that Reuters should continue to be an independent body as it is at present. Will he try to bring that condition of affairs about, that Reuters shall be as it was before these negotiations took place and the transaction in the shares was carried out?

Mr. Bracken: What is really happening is that the Press Association, a really independent body, under whose hands Reuters has prospered, has transferred the control of a half interest in Reuters, in my opinion on commercial grounds, to the Newspaper Proprietors Association. What is the Government's power in the matter? My hon. and gallant Friend asks me if the deal has gone through. I do not know how far it has gone except that the money has been put up.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Does that mean that the Government have not been in the negotiations since they started?

Mr. Bracken: The Government have been keeping a fatherly eye on something that they do not own, and they are still keeping a fatherly eye on the matter, and, if the House of Commons thinks on the whole that it is the sort of business for which the Government's approval is required, that is a great strength to the Chancellor. Whether these gentlemen run their business at a loss or at a profit does not matter to us. What we are doing is saying to them in the national interest, "It is desirable on the whole that you should have some form of trusteeship." I am not going to forecast what is going to happen, but we are fortified by this Debate. There is apparently a real and genuine interest in it. If we are to ask them to take our advice on how to manage their business, we negotiators will have a certain amount of trouble in putting that across. We are greatly helped by the unanimity of the House, because hon. Members opposite would

like to nationalise every business in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I except the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), of course. What hon. Members behind me are endeavouring to impose on Reuters is the worst of all forms of government; that is, that we should control the business without having any interest in it. If we can put that across to-morrow, we shall have the good will of the House, and I hope we shall have the good will of the people with whom we are negotiating.

Sir S. Reed: Will my right hon. Friend, before the discussions come on to-morrow, look very closely into the composition of the governing force of Reuters? The governing force is the Press Association, which is a true co-operative concern of the provincial Press of Great Britain. What we think is that the co-operative influence in Reuters will be destroyed if it is put into the hands of a Trust in this way.

Mr. Bracken: When my hon. Friend talks about the provincial Press being cooperative, he had better look at some of the provincial papers. My hon. Friend sits for Aylesbury, and he will share my feeling that there is not much co-operation between two rival local papers. It is a mistaken view that it is only fn the provinces that you get the cream of journalism. If you want to see cat and dog fights, you had better look at some of the provincial papers. I deprecate the view that the London papers are the most wicked things and that the provincial papers are absolutely saintly. I do not know why the provincial weekly or daily papers should be regarded as better papers than the "Times" or the "Daily Telegraph" and other papers.

Sir S. Reed: Mention the others.

Mr. Bracken: I will take all the others together if you like. My hon. Friend says he is speaking for a paper in India which has always benefited from Reuters and always has been completely independent. Is it absolutely the case that the Indian papers are independent? I think that there is a great deal of English money in the Indian Press and a great deal of English control.

Sir S. Reed: My right hon. Friend is mistaken there.

Mr. Loftus: I would like to take up one or two points in my right hon. Friend's remarks. Let me assure him that those of us who are deeply concerned and alarmed about this recent development impute no evil motives whatever to the proprietors of the London newspapers. His remarks about the bad barons of the Press misconceive our attitude. What we object to is the over-centralisation of great power outside the control of the Government and Parliament. We feel that that is an evil. Wherever in any country you get a small body of men concentrating more and more power into their hands, it is a danger to democracy and to individual liberty. We feel that without imputing the least evil motives, but in the main nothing but the most patriotic motives to the owners of the London Press. The accusation was that they might use this power by the selection of news and so on against the national interest. We do not impute that.

Mr. Bracken: My hon. Friend must understand that that was not my accusation. The accusation was made by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), the chairman of Reuters.

Mr. Storey: I must deny that suggestion and challenge my right hon. Friend to find a single word in my speech to support it.

Mr. Bracken: I must apologise. It was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies).

Mr. C. Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman will read what I said he will see that I said there was a possibility under the new arrangement. I make no charge against those in control under the present arrangement. I was making exactly the same point as my hon. Friend is making now.

Mr. Loftus: Everyone in the House must realise that a few proprietors of the Press, acting from the highest patriotic motives, might select opinion in such a way in future years as to favour one particular party against the other. That is conceivable, that is even probable, and I want to emphasise the point that the over-centralisation of power and authority not under control is wrong. Then

the right hon. Gentleman said that the provincial Press was already largely trustified, and that many of the leading provincial newspapers were controlled in London. This is reaily a little more trustification, but trustification is the evil to which we object, and why should this deal be defended by that kind of argument?

Mr. Bracken: It was said that the London Press was trustified and I replied that most of the provincial newspapers are now owned by joint stock companies.

Mr. Loftus: And controlled from London. In the days of my youth we had a far more representative and free Press than we have to-day. There were three or four more evening papers—the "Sun," the "Pall Mall Gazette" the "Westminster Gazette;" the "St. James's Gazette" and so on. There were far more weekly papers and far more provincial papers. Many of us feel that this over-centralisation of power is evil and against the democratic spirit and is a possible future danger to the State. I would recall to the House words spoken a long time ago by some famous man who said, "Let who will make the laws of a State so long as I can make the songs and ballads of the nation." Today we must alter that and say, "Let Parliament do what it likes; what does it matter if one authority has the power to select the only news to be allowed to be put before the public: "That is what we have to guard against to-day. Therefore, I thoroughly support the protest made, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will remember that it is not a choice between nationalisation and the present deal. We want; some moderate system, private ownership if you like, but with independent representatives, independent trustees, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) has suggested. That is what we want, and we must not confuse the issue by merely saying it is nationalisation against private ownership. In an important matter like this we must have independent representatives to guard the interests of both the State and of the general public.

Question, "That this House do now Adjourn," put, and agreed to.